PRIVATE BUSINESS

Mersey Tunnels Bill (By  Order)

Order for Second Reading read.
	To be read a Second Time on Wednesday 22 May.

Oral Answers to Questions

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Poverty Reduction Strategy

David Rendel: What assessment she has made of the effectiveness of her poverty reduction strategy in reducing poverty.

Clare Short: The Government's strategy for reducing global poverty is set out in the 1997 and 2000 White Papers on international development. Our commitment is to mobilise the international system to meet the international development targets and to work to make globalisation work for the poor by making international governance more equitable. These are massive challenges but progress is being made.

David Rendel: The Secretary of State will know that education plays a very important part in the reduction of poverty. What discussions has she had with the International Monetary Fund with a view to including within public spending targets the freeing up of any charges for primary education, so that we can have universal primary education by 2015?

Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. In the countries where we have driven forward and supported local efforts to get progress towards universal primary education—Uganda, Malawi, Tanzania and Rwanda, for example, have made significant progress in recent years—dropping all charges is absolutely key. In very poor countries, when there are charges, poor children are excluded from school. At the recent spring meetings of the World Bank and the IMF, there was an agreement for 10 major countries to work together in the international system to fast-track progress. Our recommendations also included no charging, so we are moving forward.

Michael Clapham: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, recently, the interim chemical review committee of the United Nations Environment Programme recommended that there should be strict international controls on asbestos because of the risk associated with that material? Will she therefore, at the Monterrey conference on financing development, and at the world summit in Johannesburg on sustainable development, press for a ban on the use of asbestos in projects in the developing world as part of a strategy to tackle poverty? The use of asbestos causes ill health, deprivation and poverty.

Clare Short: I confess that I was not aware of that ruling by the United Nations body to which my hon. Friend refers. The Monterrey conference has taken place, but I take very seriously what he said. I went to Sverdlovsk in Russia, where asbestos is still being mined and its extraction and export is still being promoted. I tried to tell its mayor that that is not approved of in our country, and he had never heard of the argument that asbestos is damaging to health. Clearly, therefore, a great deal remains to be done to strengthen international controls. I shall look into the proposals that my hon. Friend has made to see what can be done.

Andrew Robathan: Would the Secretary of State agree that those who suffer most in a corrupt society are the poor, and that her poverty reduction strategies are torpedoed by the poor governance, ineffectiveness and corruption of Governments in the developing world? Will she underline to the House her determination, which I know is strong, to ensure that developing countries' Governments take responsibility for their actions, and that they do not always blame donor countries for their poor actions?

Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman is right that corruption corrodes economic growth, means that resources are misused, and leads to debt problems. The poor pay the price in terms of poverty, suffering and lack of public facilities. Corruption is a two-way street: companies from countries like ours have corrupted, bribed and helped to bring about some of the imploded and corrupt state institutions that exist in some countries. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development convention now makes it a crime to offer a bribe to a public official abroad, and bribes are ceasing to be tax deductible in those OECD countries where, to our disgrace, that used to be the case. Under the poverty reduction strategy, we are giving financial support to Governments to help them with development if they tighten up procurement and management of the public finances. We are therefore putting much more focus on that, and we are getting progress. I agree that that is crucial.

Barry Gardiner: I welcome the way in which the Secretary of State has focused the Department's attention on poverty reduction, and particularly the role that country strategy papers have played in that. With particular reference to the Cameroon country strategy paper, which has focused on forestry as a key way of bringing people out of poverty in that country, will she comment on the importance of assessing natural resources such as the forest, and the bush meat that it contains, when considering how best to bring some of the poorest communities in west and central Africa out of poverty?

Clare Short: My hon. Friend is right. Forests are crucial to Cameroon. The country has a long history of terrible corruption, but we have been working on the issue of forestry for some time. Some types of tree are unique to Cameroon and they are of value to the whole international community. We have made progress recently. We have learned from what has happened in Nepal, Cameroon, Indonesia and other places where we support forestry that the way in which to protect the future of the forest is to empower the people who live in the forest and on its resources. In most parts of the world, criminal and corrupt groups misuse the forests. However, when one changes ownership and control of the trees and the animals, people live better and conserve the future of the forest. That is what we are trying to achieve in Cameroon.

John Barrett: Will the Secretary of State outline what can be done in post-conflict countries? Some of the poorest people live in countries where it is most difficult to get aid through to the most needy.

Clare Short: Yes, indeed—although it has to be said that people living under conditions of conflict are even more oppressed and in trouble. We have to do better at resolving conflict. Some 20 per cent. of the population of Africa live under conditions of conflict. Often that conflict is not a war in the classic sense, but reflects the problems found in weak states with rebels and semi-criminal groups. We have to bring such conflicts to an end and start building the institutions of a state so that the economy can be properly managed and that people have a better future. We are doing that in Sierra Leone, where elections took place right across the territory and the conflict is over. However, there is much more to do in Sierra Leone.
	I agree with the hon. Gentleman. If we work only in countries where there is an orderly Government to carry out development, the wretched of the earth will not be helped. We must be better at ending conflict and helping build decent institutions in post-conflict failed states, so that the poor of the world have a better chance in life.

Universal Primary Education

Fiona Mactaggart: If she will make a statement on progress towards the goal of universal primary education.

Clare Short: Recent World Bank analysis indicates that 67 developing countries have achieved universal primary education or are making sound progress. However, 88 countries—34 of them in sub-Saharan Africa—are not on track to achieve this goal. We agreed at the spring meeting of the World Bank in April that 10 countries would be selected for an international effort to fast-track progress. I am very concerned to try to ensure that we should select countries where we face a major challenge, such as Ethiopia, Nigeria, Pakistan and India, and not, as has been suggested, countries such as Uganda, Malawi, Rwanda and Tanzania where we are already making progress.

Fiona Mactaggart: My right hon. Friend has half answered the question that I was about to ask, so I shall push her further on the issue. It is estimated that Africa will have 75 per cent. of the world's out-of-school children in the next decade, so how will she consult the less-favoured countries there that have not made progress until now? How will she involve them in the 10 fast-track programmes? Ensuring that those countries become involved and can construct education plans is the best way to get universal primary education in Africa, which is where it is most needed.

Clare Short: My hon. Friend is right. One in five children of the world and half the children in Africa are not in school. Africa is in deep poverty, and the future will be poor if children cannot get to school and improve their lives. It is often said that the only problem is a lack of aid, but there is a lack of will in many countries to prioritise universal primary education. Education resources are spent on higher education for the elite, and there is no primary education for poor children.
	We must not only provide money for the reformers—that is the easy part—but push the countries that are not reforming and that are not leading to make progress. For example, Ethiopia, which is terribly poor and very populous, is just beginning to make such progress, and we must back its efforts. Nigeria is the big worry: one in five of all Africans are not making progress, and we certainly need a big effort in Nigeria.

Jenny Tonge: The Secretary of State knows that the 2015 goal of universal primary education is unlikely to be achieved unless finance for development increases rapidly and substantially. Although I welcome the assurance that the United Kingdom's development assistance will rise from 0.33 per cent. of GNP by 2004, does she not agree that the figure is misleading because it includes all debt relief for heavily indebted poor countries, including the Export Credits Guarantee Department debt that currently stands at £1.1 billion? The actual increase in aid will be much smaller than it seems. Is that not another example of double counting by the Government?

Clare Short: The hon. Lady is half right. There is no subterfuge on the part of the United Kingdom Government. She is aware of the budget increase of £2.2 billion to £3.6 billion, which I hope will rise significantly as a result of the comprehensive spending review. All that money is under my control: it is disbursed by my Department, and there is no double counting. But the OECD development committee is responsible for keeping the international statistics on aid, including what counts as overseas development assistance and how much each country deploys. It has decided that when debt is written off, and half of the debt of the heavily indebted poor countries is ECGD debt or the equivalent, that counts towards overseas development assistance. So the figures for all countries are growing as debt is written off without extra money being spent on aid. There is no subterfuge in the UK, but the figures look better than the income for disbursal.

Jean Corston: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the many schools in this country on calling to the attention of students—this country's future electors—the importance of the drive to ensure that there is universal primary education by 2015? In particular, will she join me in congratulating children from St. George community college in my constituency who came to the House a fortnight ago and met me and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for International Development to press the importance of the drive to educate all the children of the world by 2015?

Clare Short: I join my hon. Friend in congratulating the children from St. George community college in her constituency. When I visit schools, I find that our children are globalising themselves. They are looking at the world not in terms of nation states, but in terms of the planet and the interdependence of people, both morally and for the good of the poor. They are aware that if we do not do better on poverty, the future is dangerous for them all.
	We have incorporated in the national curriculum the idea of global citizenship because children are entitled to understand the world that they are inheriting and to take some control over its future. We also have twinning schemes between schools in the UK and overseas which are enormously popular. It is moving to see the generosity and curiosity of our children, and their determination to have a more equitable and safe world for the future.

Nick Hawkins: How confident can the Secretary of State be that British Government aid that is allocated to assist with the provision of primary education, especially in Africa, is not syphoned off improperly as a result of corruption so that it never gets to the children who need educating? She will be aware of the estimate that 75 million Commonwealth children lack basic education. The Government announced a Commonwealth education fund to assist with the aim of educating those children. That is fine in theory, but only £10 million is involved, which works out at 15p per child. Is that anything more than a political gimmick?

Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman is so graceless, and always wrong. First, we have tight systems in place and do not put funding into the budgets of countries to support their primary education systems without helping them with procurement and public sector financial management. The prize of that is that our money is secure and they have better systems for their own resources. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we take enormous care.
	Secondly, as ever, the hon. Gentleman has not read his facts properly. Since 1997, the UK Government have committed £650 million to driving forward universal primary education, and we will do more. The Chancellor announced a £10 million scheme to mark the Queen's jubilee—graceless, again, to attack that—to back British non-governmental organisations that work in countries where there is a lack of progress so that we help marginalised children and increase the demand for progress in universal primary education. That is what the £10 million is for.

Andy Reed: I am sure my right hon. Friend is aware of the importance of the G8 summit in Canada later this year. Will she ensure that she backs the calls by the Canadian Finance Minister for a review of the HIPC initiative so that poverty reduction and educational programmes are put in place, which will free up more money? She is of course aware that, post-11 September, the fall in commodity prices, for example, has made a big difference to debt sustainability in the poorest countries. Will she throw her weight behind the calls to review the HIPC initiative to make it work for the world's poorest?

Clare Short: Those calls come not just from the Canadian Government; the World Bank, the IMF and all of us have been saying not that HIPC should be reviewed but that we must ensure that it is properly funded. It has a formula for debt sustainability which takes account of what a country earns in exports to pay its foreign currency debt. Because of the falling commodity prices, Uganda, for example, has exited because the process is not sustainable and the old formulas do not work. We need an extra £1 billion of resources to get sustainability, and we are working hard on that.
	I hope that the argument about the replenishment of the International Development Association facility, the concessional lending arm of the World Bank, results in a grant being allocated which will solve the problem. I am hopeful that that will be done by the time the G8 meets, but I cannot be certain.

Tanzania (Air Traffic Control Equipment)

Vincent Cable: If she will make a statement on the IMF and World Bank assessments of the contributions to Tanzania's development of air traffic control equipment supplied from the UK.

Clare Short: It is clear that Tanzania needs a civilian air traffic control system to ensure safety in the country's air space. The issue is whether the proposed system meets Tanzania's needs, and represents value for money. The Government of Tanzania and the World Bank await the report of the International Civil Aviation Organisation on whether the BAE system best meets Tanzania's needs.

Vincent Cable: First, may I acknowledge the Secretary of State's role in resisting pressure from the defence industry and from her own colleagues on that project? Will she confirm that at present £80 million of aid to Tanzania is being withheld because of her reservations about the project? Will she explain how the financial promoters, Barclays and BAE Systems, managed to circumvent very strict IMF rules on commercial lending to seriously indebted countries?

Clare Short: I have been looking at the figures for total UK arms sales to Africa. In 1999, the value of those sales was some £60 million, and in 2000 it was £120 million, out of total British arms sales of about £6 billion. We could afford to tighten up our scrutiny of arms sales to some of the poorest countries, and I hope that as a consequence of the discussions about Tanzania that will happen.
	The aid that I have withheld from Tanzania is £10 million. I hope that once we have the report from the International Civil Aviation Organisation, and assuming that Tanzania responds to it in the best way and in the interests of the country and of poor people, we will be able to give it more help to solve its problem.
	The hon. Gentleman is right: under the HIPC initiative, countries cannot borrow unless the loan is concessional. Somehow a loan from Barclays Bank, which is funding the project—there is no way that Barclays can provide concessional funding—has been reported to the IMF as being concessional, so the project squeaked through, which is very odd.

Michael Connarty: Will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance—so squashing some of the rumours—that the civil aviation air traffic control system will not be used for the control and movement of military aircraft?

Clare Short: We have not seen the new International Civil Aviation Organisation report, but an interim report suggested that the system is dual use. Much of the expense on it is military, and the system does not cover the whole country. Tanzania does not have many military aeroplanes, and that is part of the problem.

Stephen O'Brien: Is the Secretary of State optimistic that aid to Tanzania will be resumed relatively soon? Looking forward, does she agree with Dr. Janet Hemingway, the director of the Liverpool school of tropical medicine, who came to speak to the all-party Tanzania group on Monday, that the biggest blight on the people of Tanzania, malaria and HIV/AIDS, is best dealt with by channelling that aid into building many local diagnostic centres and training doctors? For every three doctors trained, only one lives to be in practice because the other two die of AIDS in the meantime.

Clare Short: Tanzania is doing very well. It really is reforming; inflation is down and economic growth is up. It is beginning to move forward on universal primary education and to make schooling free so that many poor children can enter school. Apart from the blight of the BAE system, then, Tanzania is making progress. We are the biggest provider of aid to the country, and we have provided large funds this year. We are holding back the £10 million so that we get a decent outcome once we have the report from the International Civil Aviation Organisation.
	I agree with the hon. Gentleman—more children die of malaria in Africa than of any other illness. There is a great deal that we could do. If people slept under impregnated bed nets, that would save a lot of lives and prevent a lot of ill health. We have to build up local systems to deal with malaria and HIV/AIDS, and we must train people to work locally, rather than inciting doctors to leave their country when it has too few of them.

Caroline Spelman: We have just heard a relatively rosy assessment of Tanzania's economic potential, but I am sure that the Secretary of State accepts that depriving a poor country of £10 million is bound to have an impact. Does she accept that a question hangs over the logic of her decision to withhold aid and thus punish the Tanzanian people for a decision that was sanctioned not only by the Government of Tanzania, but by her own Government?

Clare Short: No, I am afraid the hon. Lady does not yet properly understand development. If countries have weak procurement systems and they purchase projects that do not give value for money and are not beneficial to their country, they undermine their economic development.
	One of the consequences and benefits of the argument is that Tanzania has tightened up its procurement systems. When it completed its debt-relief process, Tanzania gave an undertaking to the World Bank board that it would review the contract, but the Government of Tanzania came under pressure to break that undertaking. We have said that we will hold back the £10 million and that when we have the report and if we can get a good outcome for Tanzania, we will assist Tanzania to take forward the process. That is the right thing to do. We do not give aid unconditionally where there are bad procurement and bad contracts and so end up using aid money to subsidise a bad contract that is damaging a country.

EU Aid

Tony Baldry: When she next expects to meet Commissioner Patten to discuss the proportion of the external affairs budget which is allocated to poor countries.

Clare Short: I meet Commissioner Patten and his colleagues regularly. He and Commissioner Nielson are committed to reforming the EC development systems to increase their effectiveness, but they are not convinced that budget funds should be allocated to reduce poverty. EC spending in Asia, where two thirds of the poor live, is therefore very small.

Tony Baldry: Does the Secretary of State agree that if EU aid were properly focused it could be an enormous power for good, but that a system in which more money is given to Poland than to the whole of Asia is simply unsustainable? We have a collective responsibility to persuade political colleagues in Europe, whether they are Christian Democrats, Liberals or Socialists, that EU development aid must now be poverty-focused. We all know the problem; it is time that we all collectively shared responsibility for work to find a solution.

Clare Short: I agree completely. The EC spends 3.38 euros per head in the Mediterranean, but only 0.15 in Asia. That is a disgraceful misallocation of resources, but we need co-operation across the EU and across all parties to put it right. I agree also that if Europe, which is the world's largest single market and the biggest destination for developing countries' exports, and which accounts for 60 per cent. of the world's development assistance, could focus its aid well, it could be an enormous force for good in the world. We must try to achieve that.

Simon Thomas: The Secretary of State knows that 15 per cent. of the EU's money goes to the middle east even though only 1 per cent. of the world's poorest people live there. None the less, when working on reform of the system, will she bear in mind the fact that some of that money is vital to rebuild the Palestinian Authority and repair the damage done to Palestinian refugee camps? Will she state the Government's ongoing commitment to ensuring that EU aid continues to be received by the Palestinian Authority and that the money is used to rebuild and to further peace in the area?

Clare Short: Yes, I can give the hon. Gentleman that absolute undertaking in respect of both my Department's budget and that of the EU. We must help the Palestinian people to survive and provide the humanitarian relief that is needed, but how much better it would be to direct those resources to building the new Palestinian state—a competent state that cares for its people, manages its resources well and is a good neighbour to Israel. That is the work that we all want to undertake.

Tom Clarke: When my right hon. Friend meets Commissioner Patten, might she not find that he is a little envious, given that, although he was a Minister responsible for international development, he was never appointed to the Cabinet because the then Prime Minister did not regard the matter as seriously as today's Prime Minister rightly does? However, as Commissioner Patten is a fair man, will my right hon. Friend encourage him to encourage European nations and those who seek membership of the EU to set a date for the achievement of the 0.7 per cent. of GDP UN aid target?

Clare Short: Mr. Patten was later appointed to the Cabinet, but not in his role as Minister for Overseas Development, which he said was the best the job that he had ever had in politics. I should not be telling the House that, but it is a fine job. We can do a lot and it matters enormously. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has heard what my right hon. Friend just said about UK resources for development.

Caroline Spelman: The Select Committee report is intensely critical of the European overseas aid programme, and the Secretary of State shares in the criticism about the priorities upon which the money is spent, yet her Department is set to increase the amount that we spend through Europe to more than £1 billion by 2003–04. Does the right hon. Lady agree that although the Council disposes decisions in Europe, the decisions are made by the member states? If the Secretary of State maintains that she has a strong voice in Europe, it appears that Europe is simply not listening.

Clare Short: No, I would not agree. There has been agreement in the EU that present practices are inefficient and that there has to be major reform, and a major reform agenda has been set in place. At the last review of the amount of EU development assistance, we kept the rise to 1 per cent. Under the Conservative Government the increase was 180 per cent., and unfortunately there was no reform effort. I am trying to clean up the mess.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 15 May.

Tony Blair: This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Five days ago, we learned that the Secretary of State for Defence wrote to the Foreign Secretary saying that a "clear majority" of the people of Gibraltar were "opposed to the negotiations" being carried out by his Government and the Government of Spain. Will he therefore now seriously consider the request made by my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary that those negotiations should be suspended forthwith?

Tony Blair: No, we will carry on negotiating in the way that we have described, as set out under the Brussels process that began in 1984, initiated by the Conservative Government.

Helen Southworth: Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating the staff, volunteers, parents and children of Westy sure start, which has just celebrated its first anniversary? I have been privileged to join them in the past 12 months and it has been a lot of fun, but it is fun that underpins a serious aim—to promote the physical, social and intellectual well-being of babies and young children in a disadvantaged part of my constituency. It is breaking the cycle of disadvantage and giving them opportunities to flourish at home and at school. [Interruption.] Will my right hon. Friend make sure that many more children have the opportunity to have a sure start in life? [Interruption.]

Tony Blair: I am sorry that Conservative Members do not approve, but sure start is now helping 400,000 children throughout the country. The Conservatives may scorn such measures, but sure start, investment in education and the new deal for the unemployed are important measures; if we are taking strong and tough anti-crime measures, which we should do, measures that tackle the causes of crime are important too.

Iain Duncan Smith: Why are there now more managers than beds in the NHS?

Tony Blair: We have increased the number of beds. The number rose in the last year for the first time. I totally disagree with the right hon. Gentleman if he is saying that good management in the NHS is not important. It is important, and one reason why last Friday's figures show not just every single section of in-patient waiting lists down, but out-patient waiting lists down below the levels that we inherited, is good management within the health service.

Iain Duncan Smith: The Prime Minister should remember what he actually said. In his 1997 manifesto, he said:
	"And a greater proportion of every pound spent will go on patient care not bureaucracy."
	The NHS now has 210,000 managers, but fewer than 200,000 beds, so he has failed. It is small wonder that if looks at his own Office for National Statistics report, he will see that it tells us today that productivity in the health service has been declining since he took over. Will he now confirm that half the extra money that he has put into health care has not gone into improved treatment for patients?

Tony Blair: The report to which the right hon. Gentleman refers—I think that it is the ONS report about which there were newspaper reports this morning—deals with the position up to 1999. It also makes it clear that it does not take into account improvement in the quality of health care. I believe, as the recent NHS Modernisation Board report showed, that the quality of health care is indeed improving. That is why, although the right hon. Gentleman used to be able to say to me that waiting lists were up for this month or that month, or that out-patient lists were above the inherited level, virtually every single indicator is now moving in the right direction, precisely because of the extra investment that we are putting into the health service, which he opposes.

Iain Duncan Smith: After all that nonsense, no wonder the Prime Minister is being sponsored by the owner of the Fantasy Channel; it is absolutely idiotic. He knows that the public do not believe any longer that there will be any significant increase or improvement in health care. What they want to see is guaranteed treatment within four weeks, as in Denmark, no waiting lists, as in Germany, and the ability to choose their hospital, as in France. Will the Prime Minister answer this very simple question: will he tell us now whether we will get European standards of health care for European levels of spending by the next election? A simple yes or no.

Tony Blair: We have set out precisely the targets that we will reach by the next election and we have set out when we will hit, and, indeed, exceed the European Union spending average. However, when the right hon. Gentleman talks about bed numbers and waiting in the health service, let us remember that the Conservative Government cut beds by 60,000 and saw waiting lists increase by 400,000. They ask what we have been doing for five years; I will tell them. We have half a million more operations and 1.3 million more out-patient appointments, and waiting times as well as lists are falling against every indicator. But I agree with the right hon. Gentleman: we have to do far more to get our health care standards up. That is why we are prepared to put additional investment into the national health service. Can we have a response from him on this question: is he in favour of that additional investment in the national health service or not? If he is not, all his protestations about his concern for health care are just hot air.

Ian Lucas: In Wrexham and north-east Wales there are 400 retired miners who have registered compensation claims for emphysema and are still waiting to be medically examined. They are elderly and vulnerable, and some of them are very ill. Will the Prime Minister, as head of the Labour movement, give me his assurance today that until all those men are seen, their local fixed-site testing centre in Wrexham will remain open?

Tony Blair: I understand the sensitivity of that issue in my hon. Friend's constituency. Of course, it is only as a result of our introduction of compensation for miners in such a position that the issue arises at all. I have heard exactly what he has said, and if he will allow me, I shall look into the matter and correspond with him.

Charles Kennedy: In his television interview last night, the Prime Minister acknowledged that the state of the railways today is worse than when he became Prime Minister. Will he address the obvious question: why is it that, five years after the shambles of privatisation, a Labour Government have not done more to redress the situation?

Tony Blair: I also explained why we did not take Railtrack back into public ownership in 1997. I explained, too, that the main issue that has arisen since 1997 has been what Hatfield revealed—that is, the need to restructure and re-engineer virtually entire parts of the track on British railways. It is precisely for that reason that it is important that we move away from the old Railtrack situation, whereby it was looking after its shareholders before its passengers. That is precisely why it is in administration at the moment. In addition, we must ensure that we get the investment into the railways for the future. That investment will deliver results, but it will take time.

Charles Kennedy: Obviously, none of us would want to prejudge the outcome of the inquiry that will take place into last week's terrible accident. Nevertheless, the Prime Minister will acknowledge, as will the whole House, that the public want, expect and deserve safe, reliable and affordable rail services. Given that the timetable for implementing the recommendations for greater safety has been delayed, will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to say that he will put fresh pressure on Railtrack to bring forward those recommendations sooner rather than later?

Tony Blair: First, the whole House would want to express its sympathy to the families who lost loved ones in the Potters Bar accident. Our thoughts are with them today in particular, as some of the first funerals of the victims of that accident are being held.
	Secondly, without in any way minimising what took place at Potters Bar or the need urgently to make sure that we understand the lessons from it, it is important to stress—as, indeed, people from within the industry have been stressing—that, looking back over the past 20 years, overall safety on the railways is improving, not declining. Over the past few years, for example, collisions are down by some 12 per cent. and derailments are down by more than 20 per cent. The number of signals passed at danger—SPADs—is the lowest ever recorded. None of that detracts in any shape or form from what has happened, but it would be wrong to say that the whole railway system is in a state that means we need to fear for its safety.
	Thirdly, in relation to the Cullen recommendations, the majority are either being introduced or have been introduced—or, where particular problems have arisen, we are working with the industry to introduce them. Of course, I certainly accept that they have to be introduced.

Rachel Squire: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the first sailing, later this week, of the super-fast Rosyth-Zeebrugge ferry from my constituency? Does he agree that that will be a real boost to the Scottish economy and tourist industry? Does he further agree that Rosyth's redevelopment would not have happened without partnership between the UK Government and the Scottish and European Parliaments, which, along with Fife council, Forth Ports and Scottish Enterprise Fife, have in five years transformed an area that had been left devastated?

Tony Blair: I very much welcome the initiative that my hon. Friend describes. I understand that the existence of the ferry as a means of transport will relieve something in the region of 2.4 million lorry miles, so it has a beneficial environmental impact as well. My hon. Friend is of course right to congratulate all those who brought about the initiative. In particular, I know that she would want to point out that as a result of the measures taken by all the bodies that she mentioned, unemployment has halved in her area in the past five years.

Bill Wiggin: Will the Prime Minister at last recognise the need for a full public inquiry into the foot and mouth epidemic, especially as foreign travel has now resumed, not least between Britain and South Korea, where this week there was an outbreak of that disease?

Tony Blair: No, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman, for the reasons that I have explained many times before. I believe that the inquiries that are under way will provide the lessons that we need to learn.

Kelvin Hopkins: Has my right hon. Friend read articles in the newspapers this week and last week about European Commission proposals to vet eurozone member countries' budgets before they are put to their Parliaments, and to reinterpret the Maastricht treaty more strictly in future? United Kingdom deficits arising from the Chancellor's recent increased spending on health will be well outside current eurozone limits. Does that not make a strong case for remaining outside the eurozone for the foreseeable future?

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Tony Blair: Plenty of support over there—but I am afraid that I cannot agree. Only yesterday, the Commission congratulated the Chancellor on his exceptional, prudent and brilliant management of our economy.

Iain Duncan Smith: The Prime Minister talks a lot about using the benefits system; recently he suggested using it to punish criminals. Last year he launched a scheme to cut benefits for criminals who breached their community service orders. Can he tell us how many criminals have had their benefit cut?

Tony Blair: I cannot tell the right hon. Gentleman how many criminals overall have had their benefit cut. However, I can tell him that the combination of orders, not only those to which he refers but antisocial behaviour orders, reparation orders and action orders for young people, too, run into many thousands.

Iain Duncan Smith: The answer is only 39. The Prime Minister said, as he is fond of saying, that the scheme would make criminals serve the sentences that they were given. How many criminals have completed their community service orders?

Tony Blair: What I can tell the right hon. Gentleman is that as a result of our measures, crime has fallen whereas it doubled under the Conservatives. [Interruption.] Oh yes, it doubled. Not only the community service orders but the new supervision penalties for those serving community sentences, halving the time it takes juvenile offenders to get to court, the Proceeds of Crime Bill and our other measures to toughen up the criminal justice system are making a difference. The Conservative party opposed them all. The orders to which the right hon. Gentleman referred are an important part of magistrates' and courts' powers.

Iain Duncan Smith: The Prime Minister should try telling that to the British people, who know that violent crime is rising, not falling. The answer to my question, according to his latest figures, is that 40,000 criminals have failed to serve their sentences—yet only 39 have had their benefits docked. So that was just another gimmick. The public know that violent crime is increasing. Instead of gimmicks, would not it be better to do what they want, and put real police back on the streets, not confine them to their police stations?

Tony Blair: The right hon. Gentleman talks about police numbers, but in the few years before we came to office, they were falling, not rising. The Government have increased police numbers to the largest ever. I agree that there is a genuine problem with street and violent crime.

Iain Duncan Smith: Do something about it.

Tony Blair: The right hon. Gentleman says, "Do something about it." That is precisely what we are doing. I shall tell him what we are doing, and find out whether he supports it. We are increasing the number of police officers; he opposed the necessary investment. We say that persistent offenders should not be bailed if they are on drugs; he opposed that. We say that the proceeds of drug dealers' crimes should be taken from them; the Conservatives also opposed that measure. We say that there should be more community safety officers to help the police; the right hon. Gentleman opposes that. He also opposed the measure to halve the time that it takes to get juvenile offenders to court. There is a problem, but the difference between us is that we are dealing with it, and he is simply exploiting it.

Win Griffiths: Has my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to see, hear or read reports of the happy and peaceful scenes in Sierra Leone yesterday when many people voted in their parliamentary and presidential elections? After 10 years of bloody civil war, does not Sierra Leone's return to peace and democracy in four short months show that Britain's decisive military intervention, backed up by United Nations peacekeepers and democracy-building organisations such as our Westminster Foundation for Democracy, can give hope and encouragement to other countries in Africa and elsewhere that are currently riven by conflict?

Tony Blair: I agree with my hon. Friend, and pay tribute to his work in helping people in Sierra Leone. It is moving that as a result of work by this country, and by our armed forces in particular, Sierra Leone was returned to democracy. People there value their democracy. I agree that that sends the right signal across the world about the prospects for Africa, and that is as important as anything else. I hope that, as part of the partnership initiative that we take to the G8 this year, we can get stronger measures to deal with some of the outstanding conflicts in Africa that blight the lives of people, notably in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Angola and Sudan.

Christopher Chope: I entirely agree with the Prime Minister—[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] I agree with him that fuel poverty, which results when people have to spend more than 10 per cent. of their income on heating, is unacceptable and should be eliminated. Does he agree that council tax poverty is equally unacceptable? Under his Government, why do more than 1 million pensioners have to spend more than 10 per cent. of their income on council tax? What is he going to do about that?

Tony Blair: What we have done is to increase the amount of money going to councils by some 20 per cent., whereas the hon. Gentleman's Government were cutting it. As for fuel poverty, most people remember that the Government of whom he was a member introduced VAT on fuel. I do not think that pensioners liked that. What is more, the Conservatives opposed the £200 winter allowance and the additional sums of money going to pensioners, so I am afraid that I cannot take his protestations very seriously—although I thank him for agreeing with me.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: The Prime Minister will be aware that yesterday the House debated the modernisation of its procedures, and in particular, the replacement of the Committee of Selection with a Committee that would not consist wholly of party Whips. The Prime Minister did not record a vote yesterday. May I ask for his views on the issue?

Tony Blair: I support the proposals put forward by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, but there was a free vote—as the House would expect on such issues—and the House has spoken.

Graham Brady: Faced with overwhelming evidence of IRA involvement in the promotion of terrorism in Colombia, what action does the Prime Minister propose to take against the IRA as part of his war against terrorism?

Tony Blair: I agree that that is a serious issue, and that is why we are making it quite clear to Sinn Fein, and to any paramilitary organisations, that such behaviour is unacceptable. However—[Interruption.] I ask Conservative Members to reflect a little—when they oppose every single stage of what happens in Northern Ireland—on how much the last five years have brought Northern Ireland, and on how totally irresponsible it would have been if we had broken the bipartisanship that we used to offer the Conservatives on this issue. That included not criticising the Conservative Government when it was revealed that they were in secret talks with Sinn Fein and the IRA. I would have hoped that the same responsibility that characterised our relations with them when they were in office would characterise their relations with us, but I am afraid that I am disappointed.

Denzil Davies: Following his reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins), does my right hon. Friend agree that, given that there is a common monetary policy in the euro area while budgetary policy is, in the main, still in the hands of the 12 nation states, it is not unreasonable for the Commission to argue for more of a common budgetary policy? Otherwise, economic convergence in the euro area will not continue, and the currency will not be stable on the international markets.

Tony Blair: I agree with the position that is presently being taken in Europe about the degree of co-ordination, but I would point out to my right hon. Friend—as I did to my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North a moment ago—that the Commission has supported this Government's Budget. I have to say to my right hon. Friend that we obviously differ on the issue of the single currency. The Government have an established position on that issue, and it is important that we recognise that the single currency is a reality today, and that we deal with that reality.

David Chidgey: What reply would the Prime Minister suggest that my colleagues and I give to the dozens of our constituents who complain that each of them must be one of the only two whom he claims are unfortunate enough to have been waiting more than 15 months for an operation?

Tony Blair: In the hon. Gentleman's constituency, as in others, health service spending has been increased hugely, far beyond anything that people thought of before. The waiting list figures are drawn up on precisely the same basis as they were under the Conservative Government, and they are now below the levels that we inherited in 1997.
	I would say first to people in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, as I say to people elsewhere, let us not exaggerate the number who have to wait. In fact, 75 per cent. of operations are now performed within three months, and the health service has much to be proud of. Secondly, I would say that we agree that there is still a problem with access. The only answer is to increase capacity in the health service. We are doing that with the investment that we are making, which is far in excess of anything that the Liberal Democrats ever wanted us to invest.

Stephen McCabe: The Prime Minister will know that this is Christian Aid week, and that all over the country people are uniting in support of the Trade for Life campaign to help developing countries. As part of that campaign, I am due to present the Prime Minister with thousands of postcards from my constituents. Will he tell them today that he supports their campaign, and—because it is both morally and economically right—will he do all he can to persuade other world leaders that we must cut a fairer trade deal for people in the developing nations?

Tony Blair: I entirely agree. I hope very much that as part of the agreement on Africa at the G8, we can secure better provision for access to western markets—to wealthier countries' markets. I also strongly support the work that is being done during Christian Aid week. As the Chancellor has pointed out to me, because of the tax relief available under gift aid the money now goes much further. I am very proud of the work we are doing on aid and development, and I know that it has huge support in the country.

Paul Tyler: Does the Prime Minister agree with the Leader of the House that there is now a centre of gravity in favour of reform of the House of Lords? Will the Government put a proposal in respect of the elected component of the reformed Upper Chamber to the Joint Committee? However, when there is a free vote in this House, will it be like the free vote that took place last night?

Tony Blair: There will certainly be a free vote, because there are hugely different views across the House. It would be very foolish of anyone to say that there was unanimity in any political party—either in this House or in the other place. We have chosen this way of proceeding because it is what was put to us during consultation by both the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats. We listened, we have engaged with the process, and there will be a free vote at the end of the day—but I ask Members to realise that we will be deciding on the basis of what happens not just for this generation, but for future generations. I think we should act responsibly.

Robert Wareing: Will my right hon. Friend give us some idea of when the dossier, which I believe that he says he has, on the situation relating to weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, will be published? I think it very important for us to have full information before a decision is—we hope—made in the House of Commons.

Tony Blair: It would certainly be right to publish the dossier before any action was taken. We have not decided when to publish it, but if my hon. Friend or any other Member wants to know what Saddam Hussein has been up to—not the full details, which we can provide in due course if necessary, but the basic case against Saddam—he can already read the published information from the weapons inspectors who were in Iraq, which covers vast amounts of chemical and biological weapons as well as attempts to establish nuclear capability. As I always say, how we deal with the issue is open, but it is without doubt an issue, and there is enough published information to convince anyone of that.

Hywel Williams: The Prime Minister is a "vision" sort of guy. What is his vision for Welsh manufacturing industry?

Tony Blair: The vision is one of stability, and investment in skills and education. I think that despite the problems that manufacturing has experienced in Wales and elsewhere, for obvious reasons to do with the strength of the pound and the weakness of the euro, the single worst thing we could do is either lose control of Government finance or return to the old days of boom and bust—with 15 per cent. interest rates, and 10 per cent. interest rates for a year—or to the days when vast numbers of jobs and a vast amount of output were lost in manufacturing during the two recessions that we experienced under the Conservative Government. My vision is also of continued Labour government in Wales.

Gordon Marsden: Will my right hon. Friend join me and other hon. Members who represent seaside and coastal towns in welcoming the decision of the English Tourism Council to renew a marketing role? Will he go further and renew his focus on tourism so that by the time he comes to Blackpool for the Labour party conference in the autumn some of the anomalies in the standard spending assessment that discriminate against seaside towns will have been dealt with?

Tony Blair: We shall deal with the issues concerning the SSA in due course, as my hon. Friend knows. He is right about tourism, and that is why English local authorities have been given some £90 million to improve their ability to attract tourists. I am delighted to say that despite all the difficulties of last year and the year before, we have a thriving tourism industry and we shall do all we can to support it.

Tim Collins: Is the Prime Minister aware that in recent years my home town of Kendal in Cumbria has not only suffered the impact of the foot and mouth crisis, which devastated tourism, to which he has just referred, but lost 352 jobs at AXA, 289 jobs at K Shoes—including 64 last month—and just yesterday 210 jobs at Scottish Provident? Will he ask his ministerial colleagues to consider the case for urgent extra help for that town?

Tony Blair: At least the hon. Gentleman did not ask for a public inquiry. The loss of jobs in his and other constituencies is terrible for the people concerned. I understand that. It is precisely why we have taken so many additional measures in the Employment Service and the new deal to make sure that people who lose their jobs are given the chance of finding new ones. I do not think that we or any future Government will be able to tell people, "There is no way you can lose your job. We can protect you." We cannot say that, but we can say, "If you lose your job we will give you the best chance of getting a new one." That is what we are doing in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and other constituencies up and down the country, and that is why today there are about 1.5 million more jobs in the economy than there were five years ago.

National Cancer

Ian Gibson: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for cancer services and to establish priority for the treatment of cancer in the allocation of resources within the national health service.
	Right hon. and hon. Members could reasonably ask why there is a need for such a Bill, given the Government's positive moves in national health service and cancer services funding since May 1997. Indeed, there are those who argue that we can sit back and wait for it all to happen—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members leave the Chamber quietly please?

Ian Gibson: There are those who argue that even if the diagnosis rate of one in three becomes one in two, given the increased longevity of the population in this country, we will be covered by current plans. It is also possible that cancer will become a chronic disease, we will live longer with it and advances in medical science will allow us to contain it for longer.
	The Government reacted with determination to the Select Committee's July 2000 report on cancer services. They invested in radiotherapy equipment and set up the National Cancer Research Institute, incorporating charities, industry, research councils and Government Departments in a new, exciting partnership that has concentrated on a national strategy to improve cancer services, set up new research programmes, scrutiny of those programmes, advance clinical trials and arrange treatment in our cancer centres and hospital departments.
	The Select Committee report also said that long-term continuity of purpose underwritten by an Act had served cancer research well in the USA. On the other side of the big pond, the National Cancer Act 1971 is now the subject of a campaign for revision by the US Senate. It is a robust Act that has stood the test of time. It has ensured that, year in, year out, the US health budget for cancer services and research is ring fenced and given bypass budget status. It has ensured long-term planning independent of bureaucratic delays and battles over funding.
	The Bill would, I hope, provide the same in the UK and ensure that we have a truly national cancer programme. It would strengthen and solidify the authority of the National Cancer Research Institute, placing its funding on a statutory basis, thereby enabling it to tackle current problems of the postcode lottery, drug approvals, clinical trials and cancer registration, which is a thorny problem.
	To ensure delivery, we might take a leaf from the USA, which is setting up a network of tsars—cancer quarterbacks, as they are called over there—whose remit is to ensure that each patient throughout the nation is guided through the cancer journey, from diagnosis to treatment and care. The success of the USA's programme—to which the need for this Bill is related—involves paying off the debts of medical and nursing students to get them into the system; the training of new researchers, nurses and other groups; further regulation of tobacco sales; and new screening programmes for breast, cervical and colorectal cancer. The list goes on and on.
	Although it is true that the financing systems in America are different, I do not mention America because it has a different system of health care provision. Such an initiative should prove easier in this country, because we have just one system: our national health service. American legislation ensures research and clinical development, so treatment and care merge into one another to give better patient benefits. Bill Clinton says that cancer deserves the same respect as the war in Afghanistan, the war against terrorism and the war effort at home. We might decry his use of military terminology in respect of cancer, but the House will get the message.
	Year on year, we need to address the problems and to match the excellence achieved in cancer hospitals such as the Royal Marsden and the Christie. As an ex-medical colleague said to me the other day:
	"The best cancer services in this country are provided by dedicated cancer hospitals, such as the Marsden, the Christie, etc. In these hospitals people get faster and better investigation and treatment, usually with newer drugs and types of treatment than are available elsewhere. The physicians at these hospitals are the engine room of clinical cancer research in Britain. They provide treatment which cannot be bettered anywhere in the world.
	At present, UK clinicians cannot compete with their US colleagues because they are working with their hands tied. It is hard to enter patients into trials."
	With national cancer legislation to support the National Cancer Research Institute, we could set up clinical trials comparable with those in the United States. In 1999, America set up breast cancer trials, and had the luxury of being able to compare drugs such as tamoxifen and raloxifen. The Americans put us in the shade with programmes that merge clinical research and treatment.
	There is now great confidence—precipitated by the activity of this Government—in the cancer movement and community in this country. What is required is the surety of an ongoing funding mechanism, which would result in the better survival rates and treatments for which we are aiming.
	The Bill would provide the necessary stability to ensure that existing cancer structures are funded, and that new initiatives are encouraged year on year. I commend it to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Dr. Ian Gibson, Joan Ruddock, Miss Julie Kirkbride, Jane Griffiths, Dr. Desmond Turner, Mrs. Patsy Calton, Jonathan Shaw and Sandra Gidley.

National Cancer

Dr. Ian Gibson accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for cancer services and to establish priority for the treatment of cancer in the allocation of resources within the National Health Service: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21 June, and to be printed [Bill 137].

Opposition Day
	 — 
	[13th Allotted Day]

Post Office Closures

Mr. Speaker: I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Vincent Cable: I beg to move,
	That this House is deeply concerned that, with 10 months left for the transition to automatic credit transfer for the Post Office's 16 million benefit and pension customers, there is great uncertainty and confusion hanging over the network; believes that, in the absence of new sources of income to replace the lost £400 million, many post offices will close, including a third of all urban post offices; is alarmed by reports that new initiatives promised under the PIU Report are failing, in particular that the Your Guide programme is being downgraded and that planning of the Post Office Card Account is well behind schedule; has little confidence that the commercial banks have the ability or motivation to meet the financial needs of many of those Post Office customers expected to migrate to the use of bank accounts; notes that the network's problems coincide with growing losses in Consignia and the threat to its mail services and to the universal service obligation; and calls on the Government to set out a clear policy and timetable for heading off a potentially disastrous collapse of the rural and urban network.
	There have been several debates and statements in the House in the past few months on the state of the Post Office, Consignia's losses, job losses, the impact on the universal service obligation, and competition. However, I want today's debate to focus on something that, arguably, is as important, or more so: the future of the network, which comprises 18,000 sub-post offices and their 28 million customers, 16 million of whom depend on the benefit system that operates through sub-post offices.
	A big national project is looming—in 10 months, there will be a changeover to the automated credit system. I do not want to be melodramatic, but the project is very big. The technical and commercial challenge is probably on the scale of metrication, or of the millennium bug. It is appropriate for the House to take stock of where the Government have got to with their planning, and of what the consequences will be.
	In my business career I was taught never to predict the future but to think in terms of scenarios. I do not know whether the project will be a success or not. It could be a brilliant success, but we need to think of alternatives.
	The optimistic view was set out in the performance and innovation unit report at the end of 2000. I supported it, as did most other hon. Members. It was ambitious and forward looking, and dedicated to finding alternative sources of income to make up for the £400 million that will be lost to the network as a result of the introduction of ACT. If the PIU report is implemented in full, or something approaching that, the changeover will have a relatively positive outcome.
	According to a different scenario, however, that £400 million in income to the network will not be replaced. Hon. Members who are new to the House might be interested to learn that the consequences of that were set out most graphically in a parliamentary answer three years ago to the former hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington, now Lord Corbett. He achieved what no one else, before or after, has been able to achieve: he secured a constituency breakdown of the number of post office branches, and got the Post Office—and the Government, I guess—to analyse the implications of a loss of income from the post office network of £400 million.
	The overall conclusion was that there would be 40 per cent. fewer branches, but results were very skewed. Constituencies such as mine would lose very few branches, but rural constituencies—especially in Wales, Scotland, Devon and Cornwall—would lose a great many. The biggest casualties would be the urban post offices in areas predominantly represented by Labour Members. In some cases, such areas would lose between 70 and 80 per cent. of their post offices.
	That was the bleak, doomsday scenario, but a lot has happened since. The PIU report has been published, and we need to take stock of where we have reached.
	A problem with the PIU report, and its follow-up, is that it is rather unclear about what is happening. When the Select Committee on Trade and Industry evaluated the PIU report, it gave the rather pithy summary that "much remains unclear". Almost everything that the Select Committee found unclear—the amount of income that the Post Office will get, the way in which the Post Office card account system will be phased in, and the nature of the contract and of the technology—remains unclear and uncertain today. I shall take the Ministers present today through the various steps indicated by the PIU report, and I hope to be able to ask them questions about the matter.
	The first point concerns the most interesting, ambitious and forward-looking idea—the "your guide" scheme. Under the scheme, postmasters and postmistresses would become general practitioners dispensing advice and help to customers. They would have the advantage of advanced technology. They would be properly trained and have access to a computer system that would give them local and national data, and they would help people with their transactions.
	The system was tested, quite properly, by means of a pilot scheme centred on the constituency of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, among others. The feedback has been rather positive, and shows that some 130,000 people have used the system over the six months during which the pilot has been in operation.
	In the past few days, however, I have heard a report that the "your guide" scheme is being ditched because the Treasury has pulled the plug on it. I am anxious to hear the Government's reaction to that.

Patricia Hewitt: indicated dissent

Vincent Cable: I see that the Secretary of State is looking both mystified and negative. I hope that she will be able to reassure the House that the report to which I referred is completely wrong. However, the version given to me by people close to the project is that the Government propose to introduce a system called UK Online. I am not a computer buff—other Members may be more familiar with the significance of this—but UK Online is the Government portal for accessing Government information. It does not have the GP service, the advisory service or the transaction work. If the Secretary of State does not accept this version—judging by her body language, she does not—I hope that she will reassure us that it is completely wrong. As a result of talking to people close to the project, many post office employees and people in the network have been persuaded that it will happen. I sincerely hope that they are wrong and, from a sedentary position, Ministers seem to suggest that that is the case.
	The other, very important, part of the package is the idea of the universal bank and the use of alternative facilities by which people could be paid cash at the post office—a combination of the post office card account, agency facilities for people who have bank accounts and the basic bank account. The importance of this has always been to honour the Government's promise that people should be paid in cash. Whether that would provide a large amount of replacement income was never clear, but perhaps we shall receive clarification on that point today.
	Information is available about what the new system could mean for customers. A very good academic study has been carried out by the Department for Work and Pensions. Elaine Kempson and Claire Whyley have performed a detailed analysis of post office customers, what they can cope with and what they expect.
	To summarise a complicated study, there are essentially three groups of people who use the network. About 40 per cent. will have no problem with automated credit transfer. They are fully familiar with banking—they use banks, they will not be greatly inconvenienced by the new system and the money will be paid into their normal bank account. These are mainly people who receive child benefit and who are mobile. ACT will not present them with a problem, but it will present the post office with a problem, because those people will, in all probability, stop using their post office branch. That figure of 40 per cent. represents a lot of people—about 8 million.
	Another 30 per cent. of people have no problems coping with the ACT idea—they know about banking and have bank accounts—but are very attached to the post office. These are the younger pensioners who may be rather conservative in their habits. They find it convenient to use the post office and want to continue to do so. They want the choice of using the post office, even though they would be perfectly able to use a banking arrangement. If those people are to be accommodated within the new system, there needs to be an efficient arrangement whereby the agency banking, which I believe has been worked out, operates in full. Will the Minister explain how people who want to use the post office as a bank to cash their money will be able to do so?
	The technology involved is complex: it means marrying the Horizon technology, which the Government inherited some years ago, with the new technology of the banks. How will that mesh? We are talking about 10 months, which is a short time away. We need reassurance that the system will work and that that 30 per cent. of customers will continue to be able to use the post office as a banking facility without being steered away from it.

Nigel Waterson: In his researches, did the hon. Gentleman stumble across the civil service phrase "actively managed choice"? I gather that that is now the Government's policy for ensuring that, rather than having a level playing field, people will be channelled into choosing a particular bank account. Does he agree that that makes a complete nonsense of the Government's removal of the so-called cap on the number of post office accounts?

Vincent Cable: It does. I have heard that phrase, which is beginning to percolate through the post office network. The scripts being prepared for customers, which some people have seen, make it clear that unless there are strongly extenuating circumstances, people will be expected to move to a banking service. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about that.
	The policy affects the people to whom I referred, but the effects would be even greater for the remaining 30 per cent: people who really need the post office. They do not have bank accounts, or they may have a savings account that they do not use for cash transactions. They are often extremely old and frail and are, in the words of the DWP report, "difficult to move".
	The DWP study suggests that the number of people in that category is about 5 million. They cannot realistically be expected to move over to a banking system. The concept of the post office card account—a simple alternative—was developed with such people in mind. However, the problem is that the Government have set a target of 3 million such accounts to serve about 5 million people. That may answer the hon. Gentleman's intervention about active management.
	What will happen to the 2 million people who want to continue using the post office much as they have always done and who do not want to use banks? How will they cope in the new environment? I think that "active management" means that many of those people will be steered or encouraged to open a bank account, even if it is only the PAT 14, the basic account developed by the banks in recent years.

Kate Hoey: I agree completely with the hon. Gentleman's analysis. Does he agree that many of our most elderly and vulnerable pensioners find it extremely difficult to deal with any type of officialdom at any time? Does he share my anxiety that money will be spent on trying to force those people to change over and stop collecting their pension in cash every week? It is a form of coercion. Does he agree that it would be wrong for a penny of Government or Consignia money to be spent on making people—especially the elderly—give up that choice?

Vincent Cable: The hon. Lady is right. I can add nothing to her comments. We are talking about choice on a level playing field. We need reassurance from Ministers that the undertaking given two years ago by the then Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry—the current Minister for Employment Relations, Industry and the Regions—will be honoured. There are grave doubts about that.

Richard Page: I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman says. What happens if the pendulum swings a little further and a vast number of people—more than 3 million—realise that the basic account would be cheaper to run than their normal account and decide to open one? Who will pay the extra costs involved? Will that not worsen the situation and result in even more expense for the Government?

Vincent Cable: The hon. Gentleman touches on a real dilemma. The assumption is that the banks will contribute to that process. However, there is much evidence to show that they are not enthusiastic about that—to say the least. It costs them between £60 and £70 a year—that is not the customer service charge—to run such an account. An account is viable for the banks only when it contains a minimum of £1,300, and they have made it clear that they are not really interested in running those basic accounts.
	If the Government have any doubts about that point, they should consult the useful blind study carried out a couple of weeks ago by the consumer panel of the Financial Services Authority. It investigated how people shop around between banks and found that only one of the 10 banks even mentioned a basic bank account. Four in 10 people who tried to open a bank account were turned down with no reference to the fact that the basic bank account was on offer. The banks are not interested in the scheme; they do not want to undertake it but they are being pushed into it—that is where the scheme will fail.
	Why should the banks be involved? Why have they undertaken to give that service, even though they are reluctant to provide it and their customers are reluctant to take it up? I suspect that it has something to do with some of the points under discussion yesterday in the Select Committee on the Treasury. A group of bankers were interviewed about the Cruickshank report and so-called excess profits in the banking system.
	I suspect that the banking community was very worried two years ago that the Government would propose tough regulation through Paycom and perhaps even a windfall tax on the banks. The Government promised to do that, but it never happened and the pressure is now off the banks, as was reflected in the somewhat arrogant tone that their representatives adopted during yesterday's Treasury Committee sitting. The banks are now in a much stronger position in dealing with the Government, but that explains why that process was once encouraged. However, it is difficult to understand how the basic bank account system can accommodate the needs of that substantial group of people.

Simon Hughes: Does my hon. Friend accept that there is another indirect way in which people are being coerced to change their accounts? For example, just a mile away from here the Elephant and Castle branch office was said to be closing about three years ago. The decision was then deferred, but the closure was announced again. Those involved consulted wrongly, so they had to do it again. The staff were telling people all the time that the branch may not be open in the future, so people were being persuaded to move their accounts elsewhere. Of course, that is self-fulfilling. At the end of an exercise in which an urban post office is threatened with closure, the number of people using it decreases significantly so the case for its staying open is significantly reduced. That is another example of death by 1,000 cuts, which is surely exactly why we need to have clear policy, clear commitment and a belief that people, particularly those without other accounts, should be encouraged to use the Post Office if they wish to do so, not discouraged from doing so.

Vincent Cable: That was a very helpful intervention. I shall come a little later to what is now rather euphemistically called the urban renewal process—the urban closure process would be a more accurate description—and my hon. Friend's comments are highly germane to that.
	Let us stick for the moment to the problem of banks. If large numbers of people at the bottom of the income scale move into the banking system with varying degrees of coercion, or voluntary acceptance, a lot of problems will confront them. We know from the work of the FSA and others that there are all kinds of hidden charges—for example, when people are late with direct debits. Vulnerable members of the community can confront all sorts of practical problems if they use banks, but not if they use the Post Office.
	Let me take an example from my constituency experience. Two or three years ago, I dealt with a very elderly lady—she was 93 and blind—who was used to using the Post Office for most of her transactions, but who had an account with the Halifax. She sent her carer to a branch of the Halifax to collect some money for an irregular and unusual transaction. The bank staff said, "Sorry. We will only dispense money to people in person. If you are a carer, that is not satisfactory. If you produce a letter from a lawyer, we will release the money to you. Under no circumstance will we release it on any other basis."
	Those letters cost £75. I fought the case with the company. I eventually dragged the Halifax through the Daily Mail and, with some reluctance and ill-grace, the chief executive gave up. There is no tradition in the banking system of helping vulnerable customers, carers and people who genuinely need help. Very large numbers of people who have been pushed—I think that the phrase is "actively managed"—into the banking system will encounter that problem over and again.
	Pulling the threads together, we have been largely considering the affects on the customers, but we have to go back to the fundamental issue: income. How much income will post offices derive from the universal bank and from "your guide"? I have never heard a figure cited for how much money will come in. It could be as little as £50 million, which is the fee paid for the post office card account, but it may be more. Will the Minister tell us, at the end of the negotiations that we have had for 18 months, how much of the £400 million income will be replaced?
	If the income is not replaced, or even if it is replaced in part, there will be substantial post office closures. So we now need to consider what is happening in terms of those closures. The fact is that closures have been taking place. In 2000–01, there was a record number of closures—547. The figure fell substantially last year, and the Government drew a lot of encouragement from that, although the sub-postmasters to whom I talk say, "Yeah, sure, we are not selling." They are not selling because they are expecting compensation and because they cannot find buyers. None the less, the Government may well feel justified in the short run in drawing some consolation from the promise of the PIU programme.
	What is happening in terms of closures? First, the Government have given an undertaking that they will prevent rural closures, beyond those described as unavoidable. The Labour party manifesto says:
	"the Post Office is now obliged to prevent closure of rural post offices except in unavoidable circumstances, with £270 million to help achieve this and recruit sub-postmasters."
	The problem is that closures are still happening. Despite the Government's assurance, in the last two years, 80 per cent. of all closures have been in rural areas. There is a programme providing £2 million of help to rural post offices, and several of my colleagues have asked parliamentary questions about that. At the last count, only seven projects had been approved—perhaps the Minister will update us on that—which accounts for a tiny fraction of the £2 million sum.

Malcolm Bruce: On the law of statistical averages, my constituency is clearly a blip. We have had 5 closures in the last 12 months. In every case, the Post Office said that they were not permanent, and that it would do everything that it could to replace them. None of those post offices has reopened, and nobody believes that they will. That is the reality—nobody will take them on because it is not worth the money.

Vincent Cable: That is what unavoidable closures means—the process of closures is continuing, will continue, and once the emptiness of the follow-up to the performance and innovation unit report has been demonstrated, the process of closures will accelerate on a very large scale, and it will happen in rural areas. I hope that the Minister will clarify one aspect of the Labour manifesto statement that I do not understand. It says that £270 million was set aside in the comprehensive spending round for rural post office development. My understanding—which I hope will be corrected—is that £180 million of that has now been siphoned off to compensate postmasters in urban areas. Is that right? Is that money, as was pledged in the Labour party election manifesto, going to sustain the rural network? That is a very important question, as in many cases the rural network is teetering on the brink of collapse. If there is money to sustain it, there is hope, but if there is Enron-type accounting, and the money is being shifted somewhere else, large numbers will collapse. I hope that, at the very least, clarification of that basic point will be given today.

Roger Gale: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that, as an extension of what he is saying, we are seeing uncertainty blight on the ground? Postmasters wishing to retire simply cannot sell. This is not just a rural problem; it is now becoming a suburban problem. Corner shops and the post offices that have sustained them are disappearing left, right and centre. That is due entirely to the uncertainty generated by this lack of policy.

Vincent Cable: That is absolutely right. The uncertainty is spreading into the suburbs and the towns.

Jim Cunningham: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that it is vital that we retain post offices, whether in rural areas or in the inner cities, for some of the reasons that he has outlined. Many pensioners and disability groups rely on the local post office, particularly in villages where it can be the focal point of village life.

Vincent Cable: I think that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me, and I take his intervention as constructive. I want to mention one small problem in reference to my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty), who has pointed out that one of the sources of uncertainty is that it is not always terribly clear whether the post office being talked about is urban or rural. She has a village in her constituency called Shalford, which I think has been reclassified as urban to permit a closure to proceed. There may be a conspiracy theory at work, but anyway the post office, which would have been protected under the rural programme, is now being exposed to closure. That kind of device is being used everywhere.
	In towns, the Government have an urban renewal programme, which, when it was announced, seemed attractive. We now know, however, as many postmasters have had letters in the last week, that 3,000 of those 9,000 post offices are likely to be closed. In some cases, there may be commercial logic to that. Some post offices are close together, but many of them are not. In Twickenham two years ago, a post office closed for six months after a problem of dishonesty had been discovered. No bus service was available and that meant that many pensioners had to walk a mile in one direction or a mile in another direction to reach another branch. That problem will be repeated many times in urban areas when a third of all branches close.
	We now know that the label for the Government's urban renewal programme is desperately misleading. The programme is about closures, and who will decide whether a branch should shut? There will be an arbitration process that will be looked after by Postwatch, but how will that organisation evaluate 3,000 appeals in two years? It does not have the resources, so it cannot be expected to handle that number. Many branches will close willy-nilly.
	I would like Ministers to address, in particular, the issue of funding. Under the comprehensive spending review, £270 million has been pledged to the network, so will they explain exactly where that money has gone and where it is going? There is enormous confusion among the beneficiaries about that.
	On the general strategy, we are dealing with a big project that could go well—I do not wish to prejudge matters—but it could be a disaster. Let us therefore have a proper system of planning and of targeting objectives. At the moment, there is an enormous lack of clarity about fundamental issues—the technology used in the universal bank and the fees that will be paid. All that should be spelled out much more clearly.
	If, as we gather from inside the problem, the problems are as serious as they seem, are the Government giving any thought to spreading the plans for automated credit transfer over a longer period? The Horizon project, which the previous Government introduced, is a precedent. It had to be abandoned at short notice six months before it was due to come in even though the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) still endorsed the project. The technology did not work. That could very well happen again. Would it not be sensible and would it not help if the Government adopted a much more measured and deliberate approach to the introduction of the programme to ease much of the uncertainty and pain that is now felt by postmasters and postmistresses? 4.7 pm

Douglas Alexander: I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
	'applauds the Government's decision to accept all 24 of the PIU recommendations in its June 2000 report "Counter Revolution—Modernising the Post Office Network"; notes that Consignia is committed to preventing avoidable closures of rural post offices and has drawn up a code of conduct on how this is to be implemented in conjunction with the consumer watchdog, Postwatch; further applauds the decision of the Government to grant the greater commercial freedom to Consignia that management and unions had long called for; welcomes the action of the Government in appointing a new chairman of Consignia and a new chief executive of Post Office Ltd. and to enshrine in legislation the primary duty of the regulator to preserve the universal service; further applauds the commitment of the Government to a national network of post offices; and further notes the commitment by Post Office Ltd. to ensure that 95 per cent. of people in urban areas will live within a mile of a post office, and the majority within half a mile.'.
	The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) has reminded the House that the Post Office and the post office network, in particular, are venerable institutions that have long played a central role in communities the length and breadth of the country. In that, at least, he is in agreement with the Government. The Post Office touches lives like no other industry. It has a turnover of more than £8 billion, it delivers 80 million items of post every day and, every week, 28 million customers visit their post office to take advantage of more than 170 different products and services.
	I pay tribute to the men and women who work for the Post Office and the post office network. It is no exaggeration to say that the Post Office is one of the strands that helps to bind together our communities, whether urban or rural, across the United Kingdom.
	The hon. Gentleman raised several points, and I shall endeavour to address them in my response. I shall try to cover the major issues that he raised in the order in which he raised them. I shall first focus on the network and touch on management, in particular, before addressing the implementation of the performance and innovation unit report. I shall then discuss "your guide", the universal bank and the urban network in particular.
	No one doubts that the Post Office faces major challenges. Its tradition of work needs to respond to the challenging and changing requirements of customers, to changes in society and to the opportunities arising from new technology. The hon. Gentleman focused his remarks on the post office network so I shall try to set in context the programme of work that has been taken forward on that.
	The Post Office is the largest retail network in Europe and more than nine out of 10 people in this country live within a mile of a post office. It has unrivalled coverage, with more than 17,500 branches the length and breadth of the country. Two thirds of people live within half a mile of two or more post offices. Yet although local post offices are still important to many people, as customers, they are not using them as often. In recent years, there has been a steady decline in the volume of transactions undertaken at post offices as a result of changing habits and lifestyles, changes in customer preferences and new ways of doing business. I have two examples of that. First, the number of telephone bills paid at the post office is down from 39 million in 1996–97 to 32 million in 2000–01. Secondly, the number of postal orders issued is down from 37 million in 1996–97 to 32 million in 2000–01.

David Chidgey: I note the Minister's comments on the decline in business. However, he will recall that that decline, especially in rural areas, spreads beyond the post office, particularly to banks. He may also recall that, a year or so ago, a strong attempt was made—and partly carried out—to get banks that were closing local branches to transfer over-the-counter services to local post offices. That was a great idea that we all applauded and encouraged. Does the Minister realise, however, that the charges made to local post offices for installing, supporting and filling automated teller machines are prohibitive, so that the arrangement costs them money and is falling apart? I asked questions on that in the House and received bland replies about the information being commercially confidential, but post offices are the business of us all, and not just a commercial interest of the Post Office.

Douglas Alexander: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that. I am reminded of his contribution to the debate on the Postal Services Act 2000 in which he made it clear that he had long argued from Liberal Democrat Benches
	"for greater commercial freedom for the Post Office, and at last such a policy is being set out by the Government".—[Official Report, 7 December 1998; Vol. 322, c. 28.]
	It ill behoves the hon. Gentleman to suggest that it is inappropriate for Post Office Counters Ltd. and independent banks to engage in commercial negotiations on decisions about ATMs. I have some sympathy with his point, however.
	More than 3,000 post offices closed between 1978 and 1997. During the 1990s, the number of post offices declined by 10 per cent. By way of comparison, banks and building societies declined in the same 10-year period by 25 per cent. and the number of petrol stations declined by 30 per cent. It was therefore vital after those decades when the Post Office was a neglected national resource to develop a strategy and an action plan to secure the future of the post office network, which I believe we all want to see. That is why, in October 1999, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister asked the Cabinet Office performance and innovation unit to develop the strategy that we are discussing. The specific challenge for the report was to consider how best to harness the full potential of the network to ensure a viable and vibrant future for the network.
	In response to the statement to the House on 28 June 2000 that marked the publication of the PIU report, the hon. Member for Twickenham was kind enough to welcome it, and he acknowledged:
	"A similarly comprehensive approach adopted 20 years ago at the beginning of Conservative rule might have prevented the closure of many of the 4,000 branches which have closed."—[Official Report, 28 June 2000; Vol. 352, c. 912.]
	The report made 24 recommendations and the Government accepted each of them. Working closely with the Post Office and the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters, we are implementing those measures as we advance our goal of ensuring the future of the national network.

John Pugh: I have an advantage because I have a Labour party briefing prepared by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, which says that it is the Government's desire to create bigger, better post offices. Does the Minister agree that there is some confusion in that statement? Bigger is not necessarily better because it may be more remote and anonymous with longer queues.

Douglas Alexander: The no doubt well-written briefing was making a serious point. Some urban post offices face a challenge fundamentally different from that facing rural post offices. The nature of the challenge in a rural community where the post office is perhaps the last retail outlet in a village is fundamentally different from the plethora of retail outlets available on an urban high street. It is therefore particularly important that we ensure that the retailing experience of people who visit post offices in the urban network is outstanding. Frankly, judging from many of our own constituency experiences, it would be fair to say that the urban network has not kept pace with many other retail networks in ensuring exactly such an experience.

Simon Hughes: I accept what the Minister says, and that is the experience of many of us and of our constituents. Will he therefore, after the debate, consider the example that I cited to my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable)? The local community has proposed making a branch office into a sub-office, with a local business leading. Another community, the Latin American community, and other retail businesses would be involved. However, the Post Office will not tell the proponent and the community on what grounds it is rejecting her proposal to run the business. It would be an innovative business, it stems from a desire to regenerate, and it would be a flagship for the Post Office. Yet we are told that it is unacceptable, for no published reason. Will the Minister consider that matter, because the Post Office really must do better?

Douglas Alexander: Certainly I am concerned by the example that the hon. Gentleman cites. I will be more than happy to make representations directly to the Post Office management, if information that rightfully should be shared with the community is not being shared. Only yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear in a newspaper article our ambition to see exactly that kind of innovative solution being devised to address the needs of the modern network.
	Perhaps I could focus the debate by moving it on from the issue of spending, which I shall return to when I deal with the specific points raised. Alongside the commitment of resources, £270 million, we have in recent months moved decisively to strengthen the management of Consignia. As is well known, in March, the Secretary of State announced that Allan Leighton had been appointed the new chair of Consignia. He is now responsible for driving forward the management strategy to meet the challenges of stemming the company's losses, reforming its industrial relations and developing its strategy to strengthen and sustain the network. As a former chief executive of Asda, Allan Leighton has the proven track record of success in business that I think will find favour with the Post Office. He has the determination, drive and energy needed to transform the management of the Post Office. As the interim chair and a non-executive director of the company, he has seen at first hand many of the challenges that it faces.
	In addition, last month we appointed David Mills to the newly created post of CEO of Post Office Counters Ltd., with a seat on the board of Consignia Holdings. He joins the network from HSBC, where he was general manager of personal banking. For far too long, the network's management failed fully to realise the commercial and retailing opportunities offered by the reach of the country's largest retail network.

Michael Weir: The Minister has named the gentlemen from Asda and HSBC who joined the board of Consignia, but does he accept that much of the post office network is made up of small sub-post offices, and those gentlemen do not necessarily have the business experience to get them up and running and keep them going?

Douglas Alexander: I shall try to answer that general question with a specific answer. In one of my first conversations with David Mills after his appointment as CEO of Post Office Counters Ltd., he drew a clear parallel between the present availability and range of products in sub-post offices and those in an equivalent banking facility. To sustain the margin for sub-postmasters in rural communities, which often have small outlets, we must ensure that the margin is appropriate for the number of products stocked in the institution. To that extent, exactly the expertise and leadership that David Mills has brought to bear within the bank could be of direct relevance to some of the individual sub-post offices about which the hon. Gentleman expresses concern.
	I would make a further point, however. It is a matter of regret that, over time, relations between individual sub-postmasters and the management of Post Office Counters Ltd. have not been as fruitful and co-operative as they might have been. Among other things, I hope that David Mills will rise to the challenge of ensuring that there is confidence throughout the network of sub-post offices that someone in Consignia is batting for them and arguing the case for the network. That is why the Secretary of State ensured not only that, for the first time, we appointed a chief executive to the network, but that he had a place on the main board of Consignia.

Geraldine Smith: My hon. Friend rightly holds strong views on the management of the Post Office, and he wants to ensure that it is very good. Does he have any views on the postal regulator, Postcomm? Have the Government responded to Postcomm's consultation, or do they feel that the consultation has nothing to do with them?

Douglas Alexander: When I was before the Select Committee on Trade and Industry recently, I narrated precisely the arrangements that were established as a result of the Postal Services Act 2000. One of the elements of that package, which, I remind the House, was supported by the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives as well as Labour Members, and recommended by the Trade and Industry Committee in a previous report, was that greater commercial freedom be given to the Post Office. Consistent with that greater commercial freedom was the recognition of the need for a regulator to balance the new public policy framework that was set down.
	I note in passing that at the time of the passage of the 2000 Act, the Communication Workers Union urged the Government to establish "as independent as possible" a regulator at the time that the new framework for postal services markets was established. It is therefore entirely appropriate that, consistent with my responsibilities in e-commerce where I have an informal but continuous dialogue with Oftel and its director general, David Edmonds, I meet the chairman of Postcomm regularly and informally.
	On the other hand, it would be unwise of the Government to get themselves into the position of trying to second-guess the challenge that Postcomm faces. Let me make that challenge clear. In the Postal Services Act, we set down two principal responsibilities for the regulator: first, to maintain the universal service obligation, and thereafter to introduce competition to assist consumers, cognisant of that primary duty to uphold the universal service obligation.

Geraldine Smith: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Douglas Alexander: If my hon. Friend will allow me to answer her question in my own terms, I will give way to her afterwards, if she thinks that that will be helpful.
	I emphasise the fact that in my discussions with the regulator I have made it clear that the Government consider the regulator to be obliged to uphold its responsibilities, in particular in connection with the universal service obligation. On the other hand, Postcomm's deliberations are based on a wide range of information: representations have been received from the CWU and from Consignia itself. It is therefore essential that a clear evidential basis be established for the decisions that Postcomm ultimately reaches, and we have been keen to communicate to Postcomm the importance of a fruitful dialogue between itself and the company from which many of its figures are drawn. On that basis, there are grounds to be optimistic that a fruitful dialogue is now taking place between Consignia, not least about the volume of market that Postcomm is contemplating opening up, and that Postcomm is fully cognisant of its responsibilities, consistent with its duties set down in the Postal Services Act.
	I emphasise that the proposals outlined by Postcomm at the end of January were precisely that—proposals—and that further discussions have since taken place between all of the interested parties.

Geraldine Smith: All the universal service obligation demands of the postal service is that there is one delivery and one collection each day. Will the Minister make it clear that he expects the service provided by the Post Office to be far greater than that? Currently, there are several collections a day from urban post offices, and two deliveries a day in urban areas. Is the basic one delivery and one collection a day all that the Minister is demanding through the universal service obligation?

Douglas Alexander: The obligation under which Consignia operates is set down in the licence granted by the regulator Postcomm. However, in my conversations with Consignia I have consistently made it clear that, given that competition is starting to come to its business, it is vital that it offer outstanding service to its customers. It is precisely the sort of innovation in services to customers that is now being discussed that will give Consignia advantages. Based on the universal service that is currently enjoyed, there is considerable scope—given appropriate management who have the capacity to recognise the opportunity—to tailor services to the needs of individual customers. That is why it is essential that in the network and in Consignia itself there is leadership that is capable of driving forward that agenda and realising the full potential of the company that I described at the beginning of my speech.

Richard Page: Will the Minister give way?

Michael Weir: Will the Minister give way?

Douglas Alexander: I have been generous in giving way so far, and consistent with my obligations to the hon. Member for Twickenham, I should make some progress.
	The hon. Gentleman specifically mentioned the "your guide" pilot. As he said, the Post Office has been piloting the concept of post offices as government general practitioners in Leicester and Rutland. The aim is to test the concept of the post office acting as a one-stop, first-shop facility providing advice and access to transactions within a range of public and voluntary sector organisations. The Government invested £25 million in that major pilot, which ran from July last year until March this year.
	During the pilot, the post offices concentrated on a number of limited key services to their core customers, which included advice, information, transactions in broad areas of retirement, seeking work and local information. The service includes advice and information on pensions, other benefits, job vacancies, local transport, interface with local government and many more services besides.
	The Leicester and Rutland pilot takes forward the recommendation in the performance and innovation unit report. The outcome of the pilot is now being fully evaluated by the Post Office with those organisations participating in the pilot and by the Government. The evaluation is examining the extent to which the "your guide" concept can deliver services that citizens really want and need, and the extent to which "your guide" can provide value for money for Government Departments and other organisations using it as a channel to offer their services directly to the public. That includes examining the extent to which those organisations achieve efficiency savings and the extent to which "your guide" services can improve the ability of Government Departments to meet their service objectives.
	The evaluation process has included gathering data, manually and electronically, the conduct of surveys within and beyond the pilot area, and the gathering of qualitative data via focus groups, discussion groups and feedback sessions involving the public, sub-postmasters and stakeholder organisations, including central and local government.
	All the evidence has been drawn together by a central evaluation team, which includes members of the office of the e-envoy. As the Minister responsible, along with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, for UK Online, I fear that there may be some confusion in the mind of the hon. Member for Twickenham as to the role that those services can provide. We are confident that there is at least potential to draw on the expertise of the e-envoy's office in exactly this type of service provision online in evaluating the "your guide" pilot. I simply do not recognise the kind of conspiracy that the hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting in drawing from within Government exactly the expertise that we need to make effective the evaluation that is being carried out.

Vincent Cable: I agree that we should put conspiracies behind us. Do I take the Minister's endorsement as an indication that the Leicester pilot study will now be rolled out across the country?

Douglas Alexander: I make it clear to the House that, consistent with remarks I made in the Adjournment debate on 18 December 2001, the evaluation will be completed by June. Given all the complaints that I have heard from Liberal Democrats today about the need for effective project management, it would be irresponsible to prejudge exactly the kind of evaluation that was absent from the horizon project for all those years, causing such profound and real problems. A full and robust evaluation of the pilot outcomes is necessary to inform future planning for the network. Given that a range of departments and organisations are involved, and that they would pay for the national service, the decision must, by definition, be made collectively. Unlike the Liberal Democrats, I would argue that full evaluation in line with best practice, project management and public procurement cannot be rushed. There are rules to which we must adhere for any major project of this kind.
	Let me deal now with the points raised by the hon. Member for Twickenham and set out how the management of Post Office Ltd. will drive forward innovations necessary for the network. The hon. Gentleman spoke at some length about banking. Universal banking services, together with the Post Office's plans for an expansion of network banking—the provision of counter services for ordinary current accounts—should lead to a substantial increase in the range and volume of banking at post offices, tapping into a much larger customer base than benefit recipients alone. David Mills' long experience in the banking sector equips him well to lead those developments.
	The trend for existing network banking already shows strong growth. Excluding Alliance and Leicester's post office business, the average daily number of transactions grew from under 20,000 in April 2000 to more than 40,000 at the end of 2001–02.

Michael Weir: Will the Minister give way?

Douglas Alexander: I am keen to make some progress.
	Management is also keen to provide new financial services, such as household insurance, which proved a huge success in a recent pilot project. The Post Office management sees this as only the start and is in discussions with all the major banks to expand and improve the network banking services.
	On the specific issue of universal banking services, progress is being made and the work is being taken forward for their introduction next year when the migration of benefit payments to ACT is scheduled to begin. The Department for Work and Pensions, given its key role in delivering pensions and benefits, is co-ordinating the work to modernise the payment of pensions and benefits along with the introduction of banking services through post offices. The Department of Trade and Industry continues to be responsible for progressing the universal bank project in relation to the post office network and the DWP for the benefits being paid efficiently.
	The Department for Work and Pensions, together with the Inland Revenue and the Northern Ireland Social Security Agency, is now finalising contractual terms with the Post Office for provision of the post office card account. All the major banks have agreed to make their own basic bank accounts accessible at post offices. Of course, that agreement is now subject to detailed commercial negotiations between the Post Office Ltd. and the banks about wider access to their bank accounts.
	The hon. Member for Twickenham mentioned yesterday's Treasury Committee hearing. It is at least worthy of note that the chief executives of the big four banks—Matthew Barratt of Barclays, Bill Doulton of HSBC, Peter Ellwood of Lloyds TSB and Fred Goodwin of the Royal Bank of Scotland, who hails from my part of the world in Paisley—gave evidence to the Committee. According to press reports, their evidence affirmed those banks' commitment to offering basic bank accounts and providing funding for universal banking services. With respect, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman read the transcript when it becomes available, given the anxiety that he has expressed about the banks' commitment to the project.

Nigel Waterson: I thank the Minister for giving way; he has been generous in doing so. Will he confirm that his Department now has a policy of so-called actively managed choice? What does that mean?

Douglas Alexander: The hon. Gentleman anticipates the point that I was about to make. Simultaneously with the commercial negotiations that are being taken forward with the major banks, the Government are now developing a detailed migration and marketing strategy for the transition to ACT. The emphasis of the ACT migration and marketing strategy will be to ensure that each customer has the best account for his or her circumstances. Conventional and basic bank accounts offer more services and do not have the limitations of a post office card account, so they are likely to be the best option for certain people.
	Our operational assumption as we progress universal banking services—the hon. Member for Twickenham alluded to this point—is that about 3 million benefit and tax credit recipients will open a post office card account, but I reiterate that there will be no cap on numbers or eligibility criteria for such an account. The choice of 3 million people as our operating assumption reflects the fact that that is broadly the number of current benefit claimants who are without a bank account that is capable of receiving payments by ACT. I know that a number of points have been made about that issue, but it is worth pointing out that, in accordance with our desire to advance social inclusion, we are keen for people to move from a sector that is unbanked and into the banking sector so that they can enjoy the other benefits that currently fall only to people in that sector.
	I regret that the hon. Member for Twickenham talked down the urban post office network. In preparing for this debate, I noted that he was quoted on 17 December in The Birmingham Post as asserting without any apparent evidence that there was a serious threat to basic services such as house-to-house delivery, the uniform tariff throughout the UK and the network of sub-post offices. Those remarks strike a very clear contrast with the words of Colin Baker, general secretary of the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters, who dismissed as "rubbish" recent newspaper reports of mass post office closures. Regrettably, such newspaper reports appear to be precisely those on which the hon. Gentleman relied for his speech.

Paul Marsden: A terrible smell is emanating from the Labour Front Bench this afternoon—that of hypocrisy. Back in 1997, the Minister and I campaigned to prevent the Tories' proposed privatisation from going ahead. Some 4,000 post offices had closed. Under Labour, 1,405 post offices have already closed in five years and there are 3,000 more to go. How on earth can he justify that? He should intercede and start to bat for rural communities and the post offices that are closing all the time.

Douglas Alexander: As the hon. Gentleman's Front-Bench colleague was generous enough to recognise, we took specific steps that were consistent with the PIU report to advance the sustainability of the rural network. That is why rural transfer advisers are working throughout the country where there is a threat to such a post office. It is also exactly why we have established the £2 million fund that I shall happily talk about later and strengthened the management as necessary to provide exactly the retailing opportunities that we need. I give greater credence to the further remarks of Colin Baker, who said:
	"Talk of mass closures is scaremongering and wide of the mark".
	He went on to say:
	"It is wrong to criticize the industry for being out of date and in decline and then create panic when we are doing something about it".
	I fear that that is exactly the sort of panic that the Liberals seek to stimulate. There may be mergers or relocations of branches as a result of the progress that is being made—that will allow sub-postmasters to invest in exactly the kind of improved services for urban areas that I mentioned—but only in urban and suburban areas that are densely populated with post offices and are experiencing duplication of services. In fact, as a serious contribution to the debate, the PIU strategy identified particular needs of the network in both rural and urban areas.
	The rural post office network had been slowly contracting for the previous 20 years. The Government are committed to ensuring that it is maintained. The importance of rural post offices cannot be underestimated. Often, they are the last remaining local shop, providing a vital service and acting as a focal point for the local community, as I said in response to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes). To protect rural post offices, the Government placed a formal requirement on the Post Office to maintain the rural network and to prevent any avoidable closures of rural post offices. However, despite their best endeavours—it is important to be clear about this with the House—neither the Government nor the Post Office can guarantee that no post offices will ever close. Even the Liberal Democrats would think twice before making such a commitment. It very much depends on the local community that is using the facility and the willingness of a sub-postmaster to continue to run the business or to achieve its sale on the basis of its being a going concern.
	The hon. Member for Twickenham asked about the £2 million fund to support volunteer or community initiatives, and I am happy to give him the information he seeks. I have to say that the thinking behind that scheme gave me concern, on the basis of the point raised by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. The fund was established to maintain or reopen rural post office facilities. Let me give the latest figures. At the end of April this year, 88 applications had been submitted. Of those, 46 grants to a total value of £390,000 have been approved. The fund is expected to provide the impetus for maintaining or reopening up to 200 offices nationwide over a two-year period.
	I point out to hon. Members that, in direct contrast to the uniformly bleak picture painted by the Liberal Democrats, over the last financial year from March 2001–02 there has been a significant and welcome reduction in the number of closures. In the year to the end of March 2002, there were 262 net closures, compared with 547 in the previous year.
	The Government recognise that it is not just in rural areas that post offices play an important community role. We want to maintain convenient access and to improve the quality of post offices in our towns and cities, as well as in the countryside. Under pressure from the changes in the pattern of retailing that I described, the quality of many post offices and associated retail businesses has declined in urban areas over recent years. I am sure that that point will be well taken by many hon. Members in relation to their experience in their constituencies. We believe that the best way to address that is for the Post Office to work closely with the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters to reverse the years of underinvestment, as the PIU recommended.
	The hon. Member for Twickenham asked about the urban reinvention programme. The purpose of that programme is to ensure that there are post offices equipped to offer the quality of services that customers need in the right locations to serve urban communities, where at present some two thirds of the population live within half a mile of two or more post offices. Indeed, in some areas there can be up to eight to 10 post offices within a single square mile, some located within a few hundred yards of each other.
	I first inform the hon. Gentleman that the programme has not yet started. Decisions on individual offices will be based on detailed, local studies, the preferences of the sub-postmasters concerned and the outcome of consultation with Postwatch and those sub-postmasters. I should add that the programme will be carefully tailored to the circumstances of each locality to ensure that post offices meet the high expectations of customers and that they are in the right locations for their communities. Special provision to sustain and improve vulnerable offices in deprived urban areas is being made under a separate fund operated by the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions. Funding for the programme is subject to approval under European state aid rules and scrutiny by Parliament. Indeed, before the programme starts there will be the opportunity for Parliament to debate it.

Vincent Cable: Can the Minister clarify the specific point about the funding arrangements? Will the £180 million compensation package come out of the £280 million that was pledged for the renewal and sustenance of the network, or is an additional sum?

Douglas Alexander: The £270 million that was allocated in the previous comprehensive spending review was to implement the recommendations of the PIU report. They included a range of working programmes. One was urban reinvention, and another was the pilot that I mentioned. It is worth £25 million in terms of "your guide". Further work to support the rural network will be done, and we are determined to ensure that, if additional support is necessary, there will be a process whereby it can be considered as and when it is required.
	There is no dispute about the fact that, in every part of the operation, the Post Office needs to adapt to new challenges. The public want it to provide world-class postal services and a thriving post office network fit for the 21st century. The Government want a universal service on which everyone can rely, with faster, more reliable mail deliveries, a strong network of modern post offices, and an effective partnership between management and the unions. We want a better Post Office for people to work in.
	Standing still, as some suggest, is not an option. The business must move forward, tackle its shortcomings, and tailor its services to changing customer demands. The Government are implementing the terms of the PIU report and underpinning that by committing resources and strengthening management.
	We cannot turn the clock back, but, with the right management, proper investment, the right support and the backing of customers and communities, we can realise the full potential of the Post Office in future. I urge the House to support the amendment.

Nigel Waterson: So we have yet another debate on the Post Office, or Consignia, as we have come to know it. I congratulate the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) on securing the discussion. It is unusual to hold regular debates about a company in the private sector; it is even more unusual when that company is doing well. However, despite the hot air about commercial freedom, the Post Office remains mired in the public sector and its attitudes to innovation and service.
	The Independent got it right when it stated:
	"The problem is that this Government has spent too much of its time trying to make public entities like the Post Office behave like private companies and private companies such as Railtrack behave like the old nationalised industries. Such contortions suggest at the very least that, for all their unhealthy closeness to businessmen and wealth entrepreneurs, New Labour does not really understand business and enterprise."
	I am sorry to see that the Post Office's sole shareholder has left us, doubtless for something that she considers more important.
	Another reason for continually holding such debates is that the Post Office is, sadly, in deep trouble. It is a failing company. That was not always so: the Post Office made a profit in every year of Conservative government. As The Guardian stated:
	"Less than 10 years ago, the Post Office was perceived as the best of its kind in the world. Unlike its European competitors it was profitable, its delivery performance was top of the international league table and its then Chief Executive boasted of the workforce as his '200,000 in-house consultants' and 'ambassadors to the public', for whom the 'postie' was trusted and respected."
	The postie continues to be trusted and respected, but the Post Office is in deep trouble.
	The Post Office loses £1.5 million a day and plans to shed at least 30,000 jobs. It has endured dreadful industrial relations and continues to miss its delivery targets. Some parts of the country go for days on end without a delivery. The Post Office is scrapping the second delivery and the early collection. If that were not bad enough, it is losing 1 million items of mail a week, according to the watchdog. It has been suggested that only one delivery a day should be made to private addresses at or around lunch time. That will affect hundreds of thousands of small businesses especially badly.
	One of the most worrying aspects is the deterioration in the network of sub-post offices, which have been closing at an ever increasing rate with a record number of closures—547—last year. An average post office branch could lose 40 per cent. of its turnover overnight when benefits payments cease next April. The closure rate has decreased in the year to April 2002, and that is welcome, but the Government should not take too much comfort from that because there are problems of disposal and sale, and people are hanging on in the hope of receiving compensation. Of the 262 post offices that closed, 194 were rural sub-post offices. This is therefore a network in decline.
	What has the Government's reaction been? They have set up a programme of so-called reinvention of the urban network. They have not, of course, fulfilled conclusion 6 in the PIU report, which proposed the production of a report by autumn 2001 about the future of the rural sub-post office network. I would like the Minister to tell us when we can expect those proposals to be brought forward.
	The sad truth is that most of the money that has already been earmarked, particularly for the urban network, is actually being used to close it down, rather than to keep it open or even to expand it. The most serious problem, however, is that the Government have, as yet, no clear strategy to deal with the future of that network.

John Pugh: I am having difficulty following the thread of what the hon. Gentleman is saying. He began strongly by saying that he thought the flaw in Consignia was that it was not acting sufficiently like a private company, and that it was too wedded to a public service ethos. If it is going to act exactly like a private sector company, should it not be released from the burden of a universal service obligation—private companies do not have such obligations—and left free to close what branches it wishes, if it is to work as a commercial operation? We would argue that neither of those things should happen, but the hon. Gentleman does not seem to be capable of arguing that.

Nigel Waterson: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has been following my speech closely enough. He seems to be confusing two things. Overwhelmingly, the network of sub-post offices has nothing to do with Consignia; most of them are owned by private individuals who have opened them up using their own savings, perhaps from redundancy payments or whatever, collected over some years. Those are the people we are talking about.
	The hon. Gentleman made a rather more important point on the universal service obligation, but he must remember that, at the moment, the Post Office is not meeting that obligation in some parts of the country. It is certainly not meeting its obligation on next-day delivery of first-class mail. Under the Postcomm proposals, any new private company entering the post office market would, I am sure, be equally obliged to fulfil the universal service obligation.

Alistair Carmichael: rose—

Michael Weir: rose—

Nigel Waterson: I give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Alistair Carmichael: To whom are you giving way, Sir?

Nigel Waterson: Let me see. I shall give way to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael).

Alistair Carmichael: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would be kind enough to answer a question that I asked him when this matter was last debated in Westminster Hall. Is the Conservative party in favour of the deregulation proposals that Postcomm currently has out for consultation?

Nigel Waterson: The hon. Gentleman has indeed asked me that before, and he will get almost exactly the same answer—I hope—which is that we think that the Postcomm proposals contain a lot of interesting issues. It is for the Government to form a view on them, but most importantly, it is a matter for the regulator.

Alistair Carmichael: What is your view?

Nigel Waterson: I shall deal with Postcomm's proposals in some detail, so if—unlike some hon. Members—the hon. Gentleman can stay for most of the debate, I may be able to assist him. The reality is that we do not know what kind of shambles we shall inherit after the next election. It is clear, however, that by then Postcomm's proposals will long since have been implemented in the postal system.

Michael Weir: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Nigel Waterson: I want to make a little more progress, then I shall be happy to give way again.
	The Government seem to be involved in managing the decline of the network, and this process is being supervised by Postwatch, the consumer watchdog. I would like the Minister to deal with an issue raised, I think, by the hon. Member for Twickenham. Does he think that Postwatch is being properly resourced to carry out that task?
	We have 10 months in which to complete the transition to automated credit transfer. Most people in the industry are very dubious as to whether that will be possible, from a technical point of view, within that time scale. The reality is that an awful lot of sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses have to be trained, and their customers have to be put in a position to be able to use the new equipment. At the same time, however, despite the Minister's repeating the promise that there is to be no cap on the number of people holding post office accounts, we have now discovered that the Government have a working figure of 3 million, by contrast with the 16 million potential customers, on existing figures.
	We also know that the Government are now pursuing a policy of actively managing choice. That is a wonderful civil service phrase, but to me it sounds a bit like persuading people—possibly elderly or vulnerable—that they need one sort of account rather than another. If the Government are successful in their policy of actively managed choice, that means that, on any view, the footfall for the average post office will not return to anything like the levels of the recent past.
	I think there are serious concerns here, and so does the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters. The Minister enjoyed quoting some things said by Mr. Colin Baker of that organisation, but in its briefing for the debate the organisation also says this:
	"We shall campaign vigorously against proposals to influence people's choice or make pensioners and child beneficiaries justify why they want a post office card account".
	It goes on to say:
	"We share the concern of many parliamentarians that the Universal Bank may not be in place by April 2003, in time for the introduction of ACT".
	Those are very worrying statements.
	The NFSP also says:
	"Twenty-eight million customers currently make 45 million visits to post offices every week."
	The briefing concludes:
	"The UK's 18,000 SubPostmasters remain extremely worried about their future and their continuing ability to provide their services to 18 million customers."
	I can only assume that the Minister was quoting a different Colin Baker.

Kali Mountford: Earlier in the debate, the Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness mentioned yesterday's Select Committee meeting. When questioned, the big four banks admitted that doing business through the post offices and universal bank, and new basic bank accounts, was very good for them and would extend much further a banking system that had been retrenched in recent years. Would that not help the post offices?

Nigel Waterson: I think it would if that were genuinely the case, but I have formed the same impression as the hon. Member for Twickenham—that this is not the sort of business the banks really want, or would seek if they were not being put under intense pressure to help the Government out. Once they get wind of the fact that the Government are trying to cajole people into going for the bank rather than the post office option, the matter may well be reopened by the banks themselves.
	We should remember that the regulator was established by this very Government, as an independent regulator. We should also remember that two aims featured in all the detail of the Postcomm proposals. The first is improving services for consumers. As I said earlier, in many respects Consignia—the Post Office as it currently is—is not fulfilling even its current service requirements. The second, although it does not seem to be seen in this way, is safeguarding the future of the Post Office, or Consignia.
	In its briefing, Consignia says:
	"We accept that greater competition will spur us on to be innovative, improve our customer service and become more efficient."
	The only issue between it and the regulator seems to be the pace at which the market is to be opened. The regulator takes the view that competition will encourage efficiency and innovation. That has certainly been true in other countries where postal services have been opened up, and in other parts of our own national life and economy.

Mark Lazarowicz: Now that the hon. Gentleman has returned to the subject of the Postcomm proposals, and given his signal failure to answer the question posed by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), may I put the question in another way? I accept that, as a member of an Opposition party, he is entitled to say, "We do not answer questions now; we will wait until we are in government". In the case of these proposals, however, he can do something. He, like anyone else, can put his views to Postcomm. Has the Conservative party put its views on the proposals to the regulator, and if so, what was the content of its representations?

Nigel Waterson: If I thought about it, I would be rather flattered by the desire of hon. Members on both sides—albeit with similar accents; hence my initial difficulty in identifying the hon. Gentleman—to know our policy. It cannot have escaped his attention that barely a year ago we lost a general election, but let me remind him that we are firmly on record as saying that we are in favour of competition, although for better or worse the Ministers here today will have to deal with Postcomm's recommendations. I should add that many of the submissions from Consignia and from the union that oppose the Postcomm proposals seem pretty threadbare intellectually.
	Despite all the problems, the Post Office had one priceless asset that could not be destroyed even by inept management, bolshie unions or interfering Ministers—the brand. The names of the Post Office and the Royal Mail were recognised throughout the country and the world. They were up there with Coca-Cola and Microsoft. So the Post Office decided to destroy the brand at a stroke by renaming itself Consignia—at a cost of £2 million, to boot. Now even the chairman of Consignia and the Secretary of State admit that it was a mistake. In an article in the Daily Express only yesterday, the Secretary of State made the same point again. It is inconceivable that Ministers did not give their approval to the name change.
	We have heard pious words of concern from the Secretary of State, who seems finally to have woken up to the dire problems facing the Post Office. As she said in yesterday's Daily Express:
	"The Post Office has simply failed to adapt to modern life . . . more changes will be needed, affecting the consumer as well as staff."
	I am sorry to upset the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith), but the Secretary of State also said:
	"I think consumers would accept it if it guaranteed one reliable delivery every day."
	She also mentioned the possibility of a pay rise, and her great new idea to save the Post Office from its losses of £1.5 million a day:
	"postmen could collect and deliver cash . . . and sell stamps"
	on the doorstep. That should make all the difference.
	Little did Post Office managers or workers or the British public realise that while the Secretary of State was uttering pious sentiments about improving the Post Office, she was secretly planning to flog it off to the highest bidder.
	Earlier this year, my noble Friend Baroness Miller pressed DTI Ministers in another place. In reply to her question on 21 March about whether there were negotiations on selling Consignia to TPG, which operates the Dutch post office, Lord Sainsbury said:
	"I have heard of no such suggestion."
	In answer to a subsequent question from Lady Blatch he said:
	"I know of no negotiations which are taking place to sell the post office network, which I assume is the point of the question. I have no indication that any negotiations have ever taken place on that."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 March 2002; Vol. 632, c. 1471-73.]
	The following week, reports surfaced about the TPG group's interest in Consignia, and on 26 March the Secretary of State replied to a written question from my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) as follows:
	"There are no proposals to sell Consignia Holdings, its mails business, Parcelforce or the network of post offices."—[Official Report, 26 March 2002; Vol. 382, c. 800W.]
	She could not have been clearer.
	Unfortunately it emerged later that that answer was not strictly accurate and that Lord Sainsbury had been even less accurate. He had to admit to the Lords on 30 April:
	"I believe that the answer now is 'Yes, there were merger discussions. However, as I explained then, I was not aware of those discussions at the time."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 30 April 2002; Vol. 634, c. 569.]
	Of course, we must give Lord Sainsbury the benefit of the doubt and assume that he is right to say that he knew nothing about those negotiations. However, it is equally clear that detailed talks on selling Consignia—our Post Office—to the Dutch post office took place for some eight months.

Richard Page: My hon. Friend seems to be making a very serious allegation. Is he saying that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry gave a less than full answer to his question, which could be described as misleading and economical with the truth?

Nigel Waterson: I am sure that my hon. Friend is not trying to put words in my mouth, but the phrase
	"There are no proposals to sell Consignia"
	is pretty uncompromising. As I said, we now know that serious and detailed discussions took place for some eight months. Even if the Dutch post office is now out of the frame, one wonders about other negotiations that might involve selling Consignia to Deutsche Post or to any number of other interested organisations.
	The sad truth is that the Government cannot find a buyer for our Post Office. The ultimate humiliation is that, under their stewardship, no one wants to buy it. As the Post Office staggers from crisis to crisis under this Government, it will not be long before it cannot even be given away.

Geraldine Smith: I welcome the opportunity to speak in this debate, and I commend the Liberal Democrats for bringing these matters before the House. I have no doubt that the provision of postal services and the long-term viability and survival of Consignia hang in the balance. Having examined the Liberal Democrats' proposal, I can find nothing wrong with it, so I will join them in the Lobby.
	The postal industry faces ever-increasing competition from various forms of electronic document transmission, a slowdown in the growth of traffic and the impending liberalisation of postal services throughout Europe, and it needs to undertake a radical review of its entire operation to meet those challenges. All who work in the industry are aware that change is inevitable; indeed, they have grown accustomed to it, given that the postal industry has been changing continuously for the past two decades. The industry would have faced such changes and challenges regardless of whether the Post Office had remained a publicly owned corporation, rather than a publicly owned plc.
	The restructuring of the loss-making parcels business and the transfer of the universal parcel service back to Royal Mail is long overdue. I have every sympathy for the staff who will be affected by that change, but the initiative is nevertheless welcome. Parcelforce was split from Royal Mail under the previous Conservative Government simply in order to be sold off, and it was right to bring the two back together. Much has been said today about the radical review and restructuring of the counters network, which is being developed in close co-operation with the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters. It is critical to the prosperity and sustainability of the network, and although some of the changes will prove difficult, they are necessary.
	Those are just two brief examples of the changes and challenges that the postal business has undergone for many years, and which would have occurred regardless of the operating company's status. It is important to remind ourselves that, despite the difficulties and continual changes that postal workers have faced, in terms of cost, range of services and reliability, they have literally delivered for us the best value-for-money service in Europe. Since 1993, the cost of a first-class stamp has risen by just 7 per cent. and the price of a second-class stamp has not risen at all. Given that the retail prices index has risen by 25 per cent. over the same period, that is a remarkable achievement, and a credit to British postal workers.
	I understand that Consignia is currently contemplating asking for an increase of 1p in both first and second-class postage, although it has not made a formal application. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness will clarify the matter. However, I urge Consignia to apply for the increase without further delay.
	The company should use the additional revenue to improve the terms and conditions of British postal workers, who are very poorly paid and work extremely unsocial hours. Hon. Members may work late into the evening, but not many of us would relish getting up at 3 o'clock in the morning to start work, six days a week.
	I have been at pains to point out that many of the challenges facing Consignia have nothing to do with its move from public corporation to public limited company, but it faces a number of challenges that are a direct consequence of that change. Beyond a doubt, those are the challenges that cause me the greatest concern.
	I refer, of course, to the competition proposals made by Postcomm, the postal regulator. I am not opposed to the principle that competition should be introduced into the reserved postal sector, but I certainly oppose the introduction of any competition that threatens Consignia's universal service obligation or its financial viability.
	Consignia has made it clear that it would welcome the introduction of increased competition, provided that the approach adopted was the gradual and controlled approach evident across the rest of Europe, where there has been a progressive reduction in weight and price limits in the reserved or licensed sector. Consignia believes that, under that model, the impact of each successive step in the process on the system's ability to maintain the universal service can be assessed before the next step is embarked on.

David Borrow: My hon. Friend has said that she is worried about the recommendations from Postcomm. She and I served on the Standing Committee considering the Bill that became the Postal Services Act 2000, which established the Post Office regulation system. She supported the measure, as did I. In retrospect, however, does she now think that there is something wrong with the regulator? If she is not in favour of the current system for dealing with Post Office regulation, would she prefer the regulator's role to be amended or changed?

Geraldine Smith: I certainly believe that it is important to have a Post Office regulator, and I supported the Postal Services Act. However, the regulator has to be accountable to someone. I cannot sit back, say nothing and allow the regulator to make proposals that could jeopardise the future of the postal industry, just because I believe in the principle of having a regulator. That would be quite wrong.
	As I said, Consignia has made it clear that it would welcome the gradual introduction of more competition. The impact of each step in the process on the ability to provide a universal service must be assessed before the next step is undertaken. I fully support that.
	The gradual approach is acclaimed across Europe and was supported by the Government at the Council of Ministers in autumn 2001. I believe that it is the appropriate model for the UK too, especially as the Government have determined that the achievement of essential social obligations such as the universal service and the uniform tariff structure should override the introduction of a fully competitive market.
	Although other companies should be allowed to collect, sort and transport mail for delivery over "the final mile" by Royal Mail's nationwide network of delivery offices, Consignia should be adequately compensated. The price that Consignia gets for such access should be in line with the principles set out by the European Commission in its draft postal directive, which is supported by all postal operators throughout the European Union and all member state Governments. That approach recognises that the access price should be set on the basis of standard public postal prices, minus the savings made in the long run as a result of Consignia having avoided costs in the collection, sortation and transportation of mail. That retail-minus basis will ensure that rivals taking advantage of access to Royal Mail's delivery network have to be efficient.
	Deliveries are by far the most expensive part of Royal Mail's operation. Access prices would depend on the weight and size of individual items as well as where they were posted in the network. For a basic letter weighing up to 60 g, posted in Consignia's network immediately prior to final delivery, the level of access price would need to be about 20p at today's prices. That, most importantly, would ensure that Consignia could continue to meet its universal service and uniform tariff obligations. However, Postcomm is silent on this crucial issue; it has not said a word. Nor has it yet defined precisely what will be protected by the universal service and tariff obligations. Will the Minister clarify what we are talking about? Are we talking about a basic one delivery and one collection per day under the universal service obligation? If so, that would represent a greatly worsened postal service for many people.
	The regulator has not yet announced the pricing system within which Consignia will be expected to operate. However, Postcomm has misinterpreted the Postal Services Act, although I am not sure whether it has done so through dogmatic arrogance or incompetence. When I and a number of colleagues from the House met representatives of Postcomm, they displayed little knowledge of the workings of the postal industry and failed to answer the many pressing questions that we asked. They appeared to display a dogmatic arrogance, they appeared incompetent and they appeared not to understand the postal industry.
	Postcomm appears to believe sincerely that it has a duty to introduce competition into the reserved area wherever it is possible to do so. It does not have such a duty, only a requirement to introduce competition where it is appropriate, after ensuring that the universal service and tariff obligations are secure.
	Postcomm's first obligation is to protect the universal service, yet its approach is to reverse the criteria and put the introduction of competition at the top of its agenda. To this end, it has made proposals that threaten the universal service and tariff obligations and introduce competition further and faster than the rest of Europe, thereby making Consignia vulnerable to foreign competition because it does not have reciprocal arrangements.
	Postcomm has introduced proposals that target the most profitable areas of the postal business and could, indeed, lead to the collapse of Consignia. The profitable areas of the Post Office support the rural network. Competitors will not step in and take over the small rural post offices, which do not make much money. They are not the part of the Post Office that private competitors want. The cross-subsidy keeps the Post Office in business, and it is so important.
	Postcomm's proposals have been based on a financial model that had built into it woefully inadequate and incomplete data and assumptions about future growth, revenue and cost that bordered on the ridiculous. They were arrogantly presented to Consignia, with a wholly unacceptable period of only six weeks allocated for the company's response.
	Where was the consultation with the general public? Where was the consultation with district and parish councils? Many parish councils in my constituency were not even aware of Postcomm's proposals. That is wrong. When I tabled parliamentary questions on Postcomm, they were not even answered because Postcomm is, supposedly, an independent regulator—but it is also accountable to Parliament, so why can we not obtain answers to our questions?
	There is no doubt that if the proposals are implemented they will be disastrous for our postal services, for many of my rural constituents living in villages and for many of my constituents who currently receive a good service from the Post Office. The Post Office is not in a shambles—it is not in a mess; all it needs is the ability to raise prices. If the regulator allows it to increase prices so that it can once again be profitable, we will have the postal service that our constituents want and deserve. Postcomm's proposals are disastrous and they should be opposed.

Richard Page: I do not often have reason to praise and thank the Liberal Democrats, but I do so today. Under the auspices of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) they have initiated debate on an important subject that will not go away; the House will return to it time and again until the Government of the day provide a solution.
	In that spirit of generosity, which will not last long, may I turn to the Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness and even to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry? I do not blame the right hon. Lady for the mess that Consignia is facing—it is not the Government's fault. In politics, as we know, the guilty party often moves on and someone else is left to sort out the mess—[Interruption.] To set the minds of Liberal Democrats at rest, I acknowledge that many of today's problems actually started in the early to mid-1990s. I am not sure whether the Labour party had undergone its butterfly transformation to new Labour by then, but the House may recall that the then Labour Opposition, supported by between 12 and 15 misguided Conservative Members, resolutely blocked any move by the Conservative Government to introduce competition in our postal services. Let no one forget that: the Government were blocked from doing what was necessary. If we had taken that path in the early to mid-1990s we would not face our current difficulties.
	The only crime that I could possibly lay at the door of the Secretary of State is that she may have agreed to the change of name to Consignia. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) made a most important point: in any form of selling or marketing, the brand name is the most important thing. To throw away the name "Post Office" shows that someone has no grasp of what is needed to sell things in the modern world. Perhaps the Secretary of State or the Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness will tell us who pleads guilty to that crime.

Richard Allan: Although Consignia's name has great entertainment value and is an easy target, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the organisation effectively continues to do business under its two brand names "Royal Mail" and "Post Office"? We should not confuse the rebranding of the whole group with the services given to customers.

Richard Page: I understand the hon. Gentleman's comments, but when one is trying to advertise something it is helpful if it has only one name rather than two or three. Everyone agrees that the Consignia issue has muddied rather than cleared the waters.
	I was convinced when we were in office and afterwards that the way ahead was for a BT to be done on our postal services. In 1988, I made that point to the Minister for Pensions, who was then a Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry. He responded by drawing the House's attention to my general shortcomings. He has done so regularly, and I fully accept that; I am used to it. Apart from doing that, he said:
	"we are rebuilding a Post Office from the wreck left by the previous Government. From day one of this Government we have made the Post Office a priority, and we shall continue to do so."—[Official Report, 14 May 1998; Vol. 312, c. 499.]
	Well, that gave me so much confidence, but what have we got at the moment?
	Four years or so on—five years after day one of that commitment—the Post Office is losing substantial sums of money, post offices are closing at a record rate, and there are worrying levels of inefficiency. Massive redundancies are coming. A national strike was narrowly averted, and the Director General of Postcomm was warned off introducing any form of competition.

John Pugh: I have listened to that litany of failure. I understood the hon. Gentleman's initial point to be that, if the process had been completed earlier, it would have been done better in some ways. I have not heard him amplify that point. All those things could have happened if he had had his way, but they would have happened a lot earlier. Why should that not have been the case?

Richard Page: I do not in any way mean to be condescending, but the hon. Gentleman is relatively new to the House. If he had been here just a little longer he would realise that, if we had started to introduce competition earlier, we would have beaten what is happening on the continent with the Dutch and German Post Offices and we would have managed to achieve improvements and to introduce competition earlier. We did that with BT; we caught the continental countries cold.

Mark Lazarowicz: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Richard Page: Hold your horses.
	We enabled BT to become a world player because we were first on the list. BT had been well behind, but it did a fantastic job when it was privatised. If we had started earlier with the Post Office, we would have done much better.

Mark Lazarowicz: Perhaps I shall give the hon. Gentleman a chance to be really condescending to a new Member from the 2001 intake. Does he support the current Postcomm proposals? Will he give a clear answer, yes or no?

Richard Page: As a humble Back Bencher, with no responsibilities whatever—I have no position from which I can be removed or sacked—I can say that the director general of Postcomm is going in the right direction. I only wish that we had moved in that direction much earlier, as I told the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh), who is fresh to the House.

Kali Mountford: I thank the hon. Gentleman; he has been most generous in giving way. As a humble Back Bencher claiming visionary times for the previous Conservative Government, does he not accept that those proposals failed because they were deeply unpopular with the people of this country? We are accountable to the people, and they simply did not want those proposals.

Richard Page: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. In saying what she says, she pays tribute to an intensive, clever, smart and focused campaign by the Union of Communication Workers, in which it suggested that any form of privatisation would involve losing sub-post offices. It so confused the issue in people's minds—it was not the clearest of explanations—that they were very unhappy about going forward.
	I pay tribute to the union: as a political exercise, it did a fantastic job. Whenever I can, I pay tribute to the Minister for Employment Relations, Industry and the Regions who used to be the general secretary of that union, for the skill with which he conducted that campaign. I am prepared to do that time and again; he did a fantastic job. The campaign misled the people of this country and it set our Post Office back years, but he won, and perhaps the Labour party thinks that that is all that counts.

Nigel Waterson: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the crucial differences between then and now is that, then, the Post Office was contributing £1 million a day to the taxpayer, and now, it is losing £1.5 million a day, and the Government are in the humiliating position of having to give it its dividends back?

Richard Page: With his usual sagacity, my hon. Friend has put his finger right on the point. That was the time to have made the change. Now, it is going to be more difficult and more painful. A total of 30,000 redundancies are being talked about. I shake my head in sorrow at the size of those figures.

Roger Gale: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Richard Page: I will give way just this once; otherwise, I will still be talking at 7 o'clock and no one will be able to wind up the debate.

Roger Gale: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He has referred to 30,000 redundancies, and we have heard reference to the importance of the people working in the postal system. We may not be paying enough attention to that. Much has been said about Post Office Counters, but the work force are another priceless asset. If we lose that work force, their skill, their knowledge and the social service that they provide, we will never replace it.

Richard Page: My hon. Friend makes an important point. All Members have visited their local post offices and sorting offices and have seen the bank of knowledge, good will and caring for the people of this country. The staff there know when somebody is not answering their door or taking their mail, and they will call the emergency services. I do not want that to be destroyed, and neither does any other hon. Member.
	We must find the right way forward. Unfortunately, five years on, with the privilege of this Labour Government, we are no further forward. The post office system seems to be collapsing around our ears. I do not know what to believe. Going back to 14 May 1998, the Minister for Pensions, who was then the Minister with responsibility for the Post Office, said:
	"The terms of reference are unequivocal. The Post Office will remain in the public sector".—[Official Report, 14 May 1998; Vol. 312, c. 505.]
	My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne says, however, that there were negotiations to try to do a share swap deal with the Dutch post office. If that is trying to remain in the public service, I am a Dutchman—[Laughter.] That came to me on the spur of the moment. I apologise for it. Unfortunately, we cannot go back.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne said, both sides of the House agree that sub-post offices are an essential part of the fabric of our society. They supply all the services that we need to drive ourselves forward. They help the older as well as the less-well-off customers. As I said, I want to pay full tribute to the daily work of sub-post offices.
	A vital concern is that sub-post offices continue to expand and develop, but as we all know, they have been contracting over the past 20 years. That has been partly due to changes outside the control of the Post Office—new technologies and new patterns of work, the difficulties of finding new recruits when a sub-postmaster decides to retire, and the lack of profitability of operations in some rural and urban areas. All those factors come into play. No Government or postal provider could have compensated for or counterbalanced those factors entirely. The process of contraction, however, is now taking place at an unacceptable rate.
	Despite the Government's promises back in 1997, the Minister for Employment Relations, Industry and the Regions, in his former capacity as the Minister for Competitiveness, commented more than once on the fact that the network was under-utilised and not properly promoted. He told the House in January 2000 that the measures that the Government had in mind would attract new business to the post office network. He did not mention the fact that they would remove 35 per cent. of the income of sub-post offices through the introduction of ACT. In a debate in the same month in Westminster Hall, he said that attracting banking back to rural areas and taking advantage of computerisation would allow the random effects of the previous 20 years of erosion to be tackled. He was equally clear in the Committee that considered the Postal Services Act 2000, on which I had the privilege to serve, about how that would be achieved. I have great respect and affection for the hon. Gentleman, but I do not share his faith in the Government's powers of prophecy or their ability to deliver.
	One has only to consider the number of sub-post offices that closed last year to realise that the organisation is in meltdown. Sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses cannot sell their sub-post offices when they want to retire because no one has any confidence in the levels of income that they will earn. People who have sunk their savings and their pensions into the business or who have borrowed money are now saddled with a sub-post office. There is nothing that they can do. The measures in which they put their trust—the creation of the universal banking service with post office card accounts for people receiving state benefits, basic bank accounts and access to current bank accounts via the post office, the provision of information on Government services, the routing of transactions through the "your guide" scheme and so on—look more like a coherent strategy in theory rather than in practice. The sub-post office network is melting away.
	I understand from the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters that the Government are working on the assumption that 3 million people will opt for post office card accounts. When I asked the hon. Member for Twickenham whether that would be the figure and what would happen if it were even higher, he expressed the alarm that I share. People might say, "This is a useful method. I will transfer out of the banking system and have a post office card account because it is a system for which I do not pay any charges." However, the pressure is on the clearing banks to provide the moneys to subsidise the service. Unless the banks are careful, they could face considerable difficulties.
	How will the Post Office be able to offer basic bank accounts to the several million people who have poor credit histories and perhaps county court judgments or bankruptcy orders set against them? Will those people be able to set aside the orders and take money out? Is it true, as the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters alleges, that the Department for Work and Pensions will actively discourage people from opening post office card accounts?
	If the sub-post office is to become the vehicle for basic and current bank accounts, we want to know who will be the beneficiaries. Will it be the people who open the accounts or will it be the banks? Perhaps the service will cost the banks so much money that they will call a halt and the whole system will collapse like a pack of cards.

Kali Mountford: The hon. Gentleman is characteristically generous in giving way. However, does he not recognise the possibility of a win, win, win situation? Some people are kept out of the formal economy because they do not have access to bank accounts. It will benefit them to be in the formal banking system and to be able to run their affairs appropriately. Such a system could also benefit post offices, because they might benefit from the extra services that they can offer the public and will be better able to sustain themselves. The banks also believe that the system will be commercially viable. Once they have a new customer, they rarely lose them. Customers stay with the banks for life; 85 per cent. of people never change their bank account. Does the hon. Gentleman not see that everyone could benefit from the proposal?

Richard Page: I can see many advantages, but I have pointed out that there could be some disadvantages. What is incredible is the Government's insensitivity in announcing to all sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses, "By the way, you will lose, on average, 35 per cent. of your income. We will come along sometime in the next two or three years and let you know how we will supplement it through this universal banking scheme." The details of the universal banking scheme are not universally clear. I hope that the hon. Lady is right and it is win, win, win, but sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses do not share her optimism. The difficulty of selling on sub-post offices is a serious worry. If it is such a win, win, win situation, why are they closing at record rates? Perhaps she will ponder that reality of life. Rural post offices are closing at a worrying rate and before funding is allocated to tackle the problem.
	There are rumours of a plan to allow sub-post offices to close until they number about 12,000, when each will have enough income to make them viable. The hon. Member for Southport talked about the move towards bigger sub-post offices, but if they have a limited throughput of work, there will be fewer of them. When I mentioned the 12,000 figure, the Under-Secretary shook his head. At what number does he think the sub-post office network will stabilise? When will it reach an equilibrium? The Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness is giving him advice, no doubt using words to the effect, "Don't you dare give an answer because it will be too embarrassing." I see that the Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness is shrugging, and it is clear that they do not have an answer. We are obviously flying into the wild blue yonder.
	We also need to understand how the £15 million fund to support post offices in deprived rural areas is functioning, because it is shrouded in mystery. The Government remove money quickly, but it is less than clear how they are going to replace it.
	Postal services are being opened up to greater competition, which I welcome, but sub-postmasters want to know how likely it is that Consignia will ensure that local sub-post offices continue to hold cash deposited by businesses. If financial difficulties force the organisation to put its cash handling out to tender, will the new postal services be encouraged to locate their boxes at or in existing sub-post offices, where the flow of customers may be critical to their survival? Those are not academic issues.
	We heard that handling costs will determine whether sub-post offices survive or die. Handling charges have to be realistic and set at the right level. Only today, however, someone approached me to say that the sub-post office charge for handling payments for her utility services had gone from well below £1 to more than £1. She is actively considering whether to make those payments in a different way.
	My constituents have made their views clear. I have a petition from a small post office run by Mr. John Hayden in Tudor parade, Moneyhill, in my constituency. It is just three short of 300 signatures. Everyone who signed it is concerned about the closure of sub-post offices, the fact that they are losing 35 per cent. of their income and that more than 500 closed last year. They want to know where the line will be drawn. I hope that I get specific answers to my constituents' concerns on those wider issues. However, experience has taught me that I must not raise my hopes too high.
	In recent years, the Post Office has become a symbol of the confusion at the heart of the Government's strategy for the public sector. We had a Post Office that was the envy of the world, but instead of a brave new world of modern services and commercial and financial freedom, what have we now? We have a Post Office that, in the words of the former general secretary of the Labour party, is suffering from inherent faults and crippling levels of inefficiency.
	It is too much to expect Ministers to accept any blame for the situation. I have noticed that this Government are prepared to accept only credit, not blame, but the country, and my constituents, will hold them to account. We have to reverse the decline in our sub-post offices and put them back on the map, with security, and that is what my constituents are looking for.

Betty Williams: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a short contribution to this important debate. I am committed to a publicly owned and publicly managed universal postal delivery service, and to the maintenance of a comprehensive network of well equipped post offices.
	That said, I am greatly disturbed by the style and standards of much of the management of Consignia that I have encountered since I entered the House in 1997. I know that Consignia's statistics demonstrate that postal delivery standards are improving, but my postbag, like those of other Members, deals with individual cases, not statistics. My experience is real, not statistical, and it includes loss, delay and misdirection.
	The management style of the Post Office seems frozen and unyielding. The Welsh Affairs Committee, of which I am a member, has several times taken evidence from the Post Office. On the most recent occasion, a list of post offices in Wales was requested from the company. It provided the list, but clearly with some reluctance because it asked that it should not be released to the public. That is a novel way to conduct business—to set up thousands of outlets but not let the public know where they are. Fortunately, the company agreed with the Committee that it was being over-zealous. Perhaps by then it had seen the list published, for all to see, in the Yellow Pages. The list that the company provided to the Committee appeared to be in an entirely random order; it was set out neither alphabetically nor geographically, so the post offices in my constituency were distributed throughout a 25-page list.
	I had earlier asked the management for a list of the post offices in my constituency. I was told that it was cost-prohibitive to provide it. In fact, from a list of all Welsh post office locations and their postcodes, it should be possible to produce such a list for all constituencies in Wales without any difficulty. It may surprise hon. Members that although the Post Office uses postcodes for the efficient delivery of mail, and an excellent system it is, its management is incapable of using them in its business, so it is happy to tell me that post offices in Dyserth and Holyhead are in my constituency. That may surprise my hon. Friends the Members for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) and for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) because, as intelligent people will know, neither of those places is in my constituency. Those are just two examples of such errors.
	Other hon. Members have commented on the closure of post offices. In Wales, the Post Office has appointed rural advisers, but there are only four for the whole of Wales and they have yet to prove themselves. Closure also affects urban post offices, and they are outside the remit of the advisers. Post office closures are not always handled well by management. Standards of communication between management and sub-post offices appear to be less than satisfactory.
	I am aware that the National Federation of Sub- Postmasters has concerns about the future of the post office network, and I understand the remarks made by the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) about rumours. Let me quote a letter from one sub-post office proprietor, who said:
	"I am afraid the people at the top of the Post Office, who are the people who can actually make the changes and are often those who reply to you, seem to have little or no first hand experience of what actually happens at a Post Office counter. It is not surprising therefore to find that the real reason so many Subpostmasters are trying to leave the organisation is because they have such little confidence in the hierarchy. The ACT threat is of course very real, but most Subpostmasters also run another side to their business and are used to competition and challenges. It is when they see the constant floundering exhibited in the managing of the Post Office and the utterly disgraceful failure to develop the business to meet a long known about challenge that Subpostmasters become despondent about their future livelihood."
	That is the view of a practitioner delivering a service to the customer over the counter.
	Closure of the sub-post office in Mostyn street, Llandudno, was announced in November 2001, to take effect in March 2002. It was caused by the franchise partner deciding not to renew the contract. There was considerable local opposition to the loss in that town centre location. The mayor of Llandudno, Councillor Brian B. Bertola, and Llandudno town council raised a petition of more than 3,000 signatures. When asked to receive the petition from the mayor and myself in the town of Llandudno, management in Wales declined to do so. They also declined to receive it in Westminster, saying that it was
	"not cost effective to do so."
	I have used the expression Post Office rather than Consignia because the name Post Office is known to the public. In Wales, the Post Office has a long history of providing reliable delivery of mail to households, many of which are in remote locations. I have nothing but admiration for Post Office staff, who on occasion must deliver in weather that can be understood only by hon. Members with mountainous constituencies. The universal postal obligation is essential to my constituents. Mr. Martin Stanley, chief executive of Postcomm, knows of my concern through correspondence and early-day motions 797 and 827. Cherry-picking of rich urban areas must not be permitted.
	Equally important is that the management of the Post Office become more responsive to their staff, their sub-post offices and to the users of their services. So far, management have hardly begun to demonstrate a willingness to do so. I hope that I have been able to demonstrate that it is too simplistic to say that throwing additional funding at the issue will be sufficient. The attitude of management must change.

Robert Walter: I am sorry to have to speak in the debate, but although all rural Members are used to the occasional pub or filling station closure in their constituency, the closure of local sub-post offices in villages in my constituency happens too often. On 27 March, the post office at Bryanston, just outside Blandford, closed. On 12 April, I received a letter headed "'an essential part of everyday life' www.postoffice.co.uk" which read:
	"Dear Mr. Walter
	Winterborne Whitechurch Post Office Branch . . .
	We wrote in August 2000, advising of the temporary closure of the Post Office branch . . . At that time, we were unable to identify a suitable candidate or premises".
	That was the second time that that post office had closed in five years—they had previously found a suitable candidate. The letter continued:
	"The purpose of this letter therefore is to ask if you are aware of any changes".
	On the same day from the same gentleman on the same headed paper, I received a letter about the Glanvilles Wootton post office branch, which had also closed in 2000. It said:
	"Do you know of any changes in the circumstances within Glanvilles Wootton which may help us restore a service to our customers?"
	The first post office that I mentioned at Bryanston was located in a small village shop and its closure was involuntary. Everyone in the village knew where the post office was. Those who used its facilities knew that if they went to the village shop the post office counter was located at the back. But that was not good enough for those who run the post office network. They made it a condition that the person who ran that post office—for only a couple of days a week—would have to relocate the counter so that it was more prominent within the shop. The capital expenditure that would have been required for that would have been out of all proportion to the shop's commercial viability, so on that basis the postmaster declined to renew his contract because he did not have the resources.
	So far I have mentioned just three post offices, but the list is not complete. During the last five years, my constituency has lost post offices at Tarrant Gunville; Pimperne, where it has fortunately re-opened; Weston; Lydlinch; and Hazelbury Bryan, where I am also pleased to say that a year ago I was invited to cut the tape as we re-opened the post office. However, the net loss of village post offices is symptomatic of an underlying problem. The village postmasters are under pressure. Forgive me if the evidence is anecdotal; it is none the less valuable. Several village postmasters have told me that village businesses no longer buy stamps from them because they are being offered stamps at a discount direct from the Post Office.
	Car tax is a matter for the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, not for the Post Office or the DTI, but in the interest of joined-up government, surely it would be good news for village post offices if the Government could give some encouragement to the DVLA to allow all sub-post offices to sell car tax. A village garage in my constituency has within its premises a shop and a post office. One can buy a car, insure it and have an MOT done there, but one cannot buy a tax disc.
	The key threat, which has already been mentioned, is the changeover in the benefits business. Nothing in the Minister's opening remarks convinced me that the Government are sensitive to the threat that that poses for village sub-post offices. What I heard sounded like an urban agenda. Few of my rural constituents live within half a mile of a post office, which I think was the phrase that he used. The village post office is a key part of the social fabric of the countryside and the strategy for transferring the benefits business is confused for the sub-postmasters involved and for the public whose benefits will be involved.

Kali Mountford: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Robert Walter: No.
	The result will be the closure of more vital village post offices. Too often have I received letters from the Post Office informing me of the closure of yet another post office and giving alternatives up to five miles away. Post office facilities affect the elderly and their closure is a disaster for the many in those villages who have no public transport and is usually soon followed by the closure of the village shop. It is devastating for the social fabric of our villages. I believe that the Post Office and the Government are indifferent to that and I pray that the Government will wake up to the damage that they are doing to rural Britain.

Mark Lazarowicz: The Minister will be aware that on many occasions I have raised with him problems with sub-post offices in my constituency and the postal services. He and many hon. Members present today will be aware that I have certainly not been slow to raise with Ministers, publicly and privately, concerns that have affected my constituency. Hon. Members speak up for local interests and try to resolve local difficulties as well as possible. But the difference between the approach that I and many of my hon. Friends try to adopt and that taken by some Opposition Members today is that, as well as trying to address some of the local problems and issues, we recognise that there have to be fundamental changes to the post office network and to postal services. Changes are taking place in the marketplace, in technology and in demand that cannot be simply wished away.
	I listened closely to the carefully crafted opening remarks of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) and read the Liberal Democrat motion, but at the end of the day I saw no real recognition that there are fundamental problems and changes that need to be addressed. Their approach today has been very much along the lines that something must be done and radical steps must be taken, but they are not sure what they are and there must not be any changes.
	The Minister charitably suggested that the Liberal Democrats would not oppose the closure of some post offices, but the line that they have taken today and on other occasions has been to suggest that no post office anywhere in the country should ever close. If I do the Liberal Democrats an injustice I invite them to show me a single Liberal Democrat "Focus" newsletter anywhere in the country that has done anything other than condemn a sub-post office closure as outrageous, scandalous and attacking the fabric of the community. If I am being unfair and any of the diminishing number of Liberal Democrats here can show me such a leaflet, I shall be happy to give way to them.

Richard Allan: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that, in the context of local campaigning, I have yet to see a single copy of Labour's "The Rose" or the Conservatives' "In Touch" saying, "We are happy with the post office closure." I think that we should accept that we are talking about the big issues of the future of the Post Office in our motion and that any local party of whatever persuasion is bound to campaign against post office closure. It is unrealistic to think otherwise.

Mark Lazarowicz: I am touched by that refreshing honesty. In my constituency, I have a problem where two sub-post offices in one area are closing and I have done my best to campaign, with the assistance of the Minister, for the retention of those postal services. I accept that the best solution may be one post office in place of two, so we do not all take the hon. Gentleman's approach.

Nigel Waterson: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has seen the Liberal Democrat campaign document that advises candidates to "act shamelessly", "be wicked" and "Don't be afraid to exaggerate". It concludes with advice relevant to the point that the hon. Gentleman was making, saying:
	"Oppose all service cuts. No cut is going to be popular and why court the unpopularity that goes with the responsibility of power".

Mark Lazarowicz: I am glad of the hon. Gentleman's support on that point, but I now come to a criticism of his position on the matter. Although I enjoyed his quoting from the briefing of the National Federation of Sub- Postmasters, he showed, I believe, that it is always dangerous selectively to quote from a briefing that is sent to all hon. Members, as others are invited to draw attention to the other points that are made in that briefing. The federation has a realistic approach to the problem facing the sub-post office network, by contrast with Opposition Members. It states:
	"It is accepted that there is duplication and overprovision in some urban areas, making those post offices commercially unviable. There is an urgent need for restructuring."
	It goes on to state:
	"Tough decisions must be made in order to ensure a viable network for the future to create bigger, better and brighter post offices . . . The larger customer base for some offices following restructuring should enable sub-postmasters in many cases to invest in improved facilities, additional counter positions and longer opening hours."
	That is a realistic approach. Of course, the federation makes other comments, as one would expect from a lobby group whose role is to be critical of the Government and which is likely to demand action that they may not be able to support. The basic point, however, is that the federation supports the urban reinvention programme, and that should be emphasised in this debate.
	A dose of reality is required when we discuss sub-post offices and postal delivery services. Of course, all hon. Members support the universal service obligation; the Government and every hon. Member who has spoken support it. The universal postal delivery service must remain. Along with many hon. Members, I have signed a number of early-day motions strongly criticising the Postcomm proposals, as I do again today. At the same time, we must recognise that times have changed since the postal service was the only way in which communities—remote ones in particular—could stay in touch with the rest of the world.
	Of course, the postal service still plays a vital role in communities throughout the country. We should be proud that, through the postal service, somebody in the Isles of Scilly can be in contact with somebody in Lerwick—or Leir-vik, as I believe we are meant to call it—just as easily and at the same price as somebody here in Westminster can communicate with somebody in the City of London a mile down the road. However, it is one thing to say that we should provide a cross-subsidy to enable people throughout the country and especially in remote areas to enjoy the same postal service as everyone else and allow them to stay part of the community and to stay in touch with friends and relatives, but quite another to say that we should give the same large cross-subsidy to enable direct mail marketing companies to send the same junk mail to everyone in the country—the sort of rubbish that finds its way into the bin whether it is delivered in Thurso or Truro, Edinburgh or London.
	That is the reality of the changing way in which the postal service is used. There are no easy solutions. I am not calling for the abolition of the universal post; far from it—I want it to be retained. However, we must recognise changes in the marketplace and in the role that the postal service plays in our society.
	The way forward is not to stay stuck in the past, but to rebuild a post office network to take account of changing needs, technologies and opportunities. The "your guide" initiative is an excellent scheme; like many hon. Members, I saw the display in Portcullis House. There are many opportunities to develop that system, perhaps by involving local government and other services that can be provided for communities.
	The Liberal Democrats' approach seems basically one of managed decline of the sub-post office network. They do not have the same grounding in reality as the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters. We are all concerned about change in our areas and communities, and all of us will speak up for the interests of our communities whenever they are threatened, but I recognise that fundamental change is necessary. I welcome the fact that the Government are taking that need seriously and putting in £270 million to back up what they say with actions.

Alistair Carmichael: A great deal has been said in this debate that I would like to pick up on, but I have one careful eye on the clock and I am aware that other hon. Members want to speak, so I shall try keep my remarks within as narrow a compass as possible.
	There were interesting contrasts between the speeches of the hon. Members for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) and for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith), who is unfortunately not in her place. If there is a race to achieve junior ministerial office, I suspect that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith will probably win it, but I thought that the speech of the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale was a great deal more commendable.
	The closure of post offices has been an ongoing sore in my constituency for many years. It strikes at the heart of island communities—especially the smaller ones that I represent. Rural post offices in such areas bring with them another Government wage and eventually a pension—money coming in to an island that would not otherwise be available. As other essential Government services such as coastguards and Customs and Excise are withdrawn, taking with them jobs from rural and island communities, particular importance must be placed on the continuation of post offices in our communities.
	Barely a month goes by when I do not receive another letter from the Post Office telling me that yet another sub-post office is to close. It always happens because somebody has retired or is moving away, which is an indication of just how unattractive the job of sub-postmaster in a rural or island community now is.
	I shall focus on the current Postcomm consultation on deregulation of letter post—a subject that has exercised many of my constituents and causes grave concern throughout Orkney and Shetland. In March, I presented at Downing street a petition bearing some 5,000 signatures; since that time, a further 1,000 signatures have been added. I have an electorate of 34,000, so about 17 per cent. of my electorate were represented. [Interruption.] I hear barracking from behind me, but I remind hon. Members that were my constituency situated on the mainland, it would stretch from London to Harrogate, so I am not looking for any extra pieces to be added, even if that were possible.
	My main concern about the Postcomm proposals is that they are a licence for cherry-picking. I can see the great advantage of competition in attractive areas such as Glasgow, Edinburgh and other towns, but I cannot envisage much competition to deliver mail to Papa Westray or to Graemsay, which has a population of 17, or Papa Stour, which now has a population of 15. That is why the continuation of the universal service obligation is so important to my constituents and why we so desperately oppose the Postcomm proposals.
	The proposals are the thin end of the wedge, as once the Post Office monopoly is removed, the universal service obligation will also go as sure as night follows day. I do not understand how Postcomm can possibly say that its primary concern is the preservation of the universal service obligation when it chooses to conduct a consultation about it after the current consultation on deregulation. To my mind, that seems a classic case of putting the cart before the horse, and I think that it gives the game away.
	We have had experience of deregulation in relation to parcel post. Hon. Members can now pick up any Sunday supplement and see in the mail order advertisements small print saying "Free delivery to all mainland areas of the United Kingdom". We already routinely expect to pay a supplement for our parcel delivery service.
	Postcomm's response to my concerns about the universal service obligation ending as a result of deregulation was to tell me, "Don't worry, old chap—we've thought about that one and we've got it sussed. The people who want the universal service obligation are the banks, credit card companies and big mail users, and they won't let it go." The real tragedy of that argument is that it was made with a totally straight face—I could almost have believed that it was made sincerely. I cannot believe that the Royal Bank of Scotland, the Bank of Scotland, Mastercard and American Express will go to the barricades to save the universal service obligation in my constituency.
	The problems with Consignia have been well documented, and I am pleased that they are at last being taken seriously. Now, time should be given to allow the radical measures proposed by the Post Office in relation to the Postcomm consultation to bed in and take effect.
	I want to say a few words about Postcomm—the regulator on a mission. I am disappointed that the Government take such an extremely non-interventionist attitude towards Postcomm. The Government have a duty, where they see a regulator acting as perversely as Postcomm, to intervene and pull it back into line. Whatever the fine print of the law may be, the fact remains that this House must ultimately be accountable for postal services, and the Government cannot be allowed to duck the issue in this way.
	My other great disappointment over the past few weeks with the Postcomm consultation came from the body that one might have hoped would be prepared to take up the cudgels for the individual customers being served by the Post Office—Postwatch. When I met the chairman of Postwatch Scotland, he told me that it regards the big mail companies, banks and credit card companies as consumers as well, so it was prepared to represent their views as vigorously as those of my constituents. That unhelpful attitude leaves a big gap in the debate and a vacuum where there should be proper representation of constituency needs and wishes.
	I deeply regret the exceptionally poor relations, as I see them, between Consignia and Postwatch. Having those two bodies, regulator and provider, at each other's throats, as they have been since the end of January, is not in any way helpful. My plea to the Minister is this. Do not leave it to the regulator, because it has shown that it is following an agenda that will be to the detriment of communities such as those that I represent. Get in there, bang heads together and get it sorted out.

David Borrow: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. We seem to have a similar debate every few months as we follow the Post Office's progress.
	Ministers are well aware of my concerns about the future of the Post Office. Many of its problems can be traced back many years. I want to separate the problems in postal services from those in the sub-post office network, as they are slightly different.
	I well remember discussing the structure of the Post Office during the passage of the Postal Services Act 2000. The dilemma that we faced was how to allow the Post Office commercial freedom while retaining its role as a public service. Under the model that we came up with, a Post Office regulator—Postcomm—was introduced. Since then, the frailties and inadequacies of the management, operating under the old nationalised industry model, have become increasingly apparent, and their failure to cope with the change to a commercial freedom role has become increasingly obvious. I hope that the changes that have taken place since the introduction of Allan Leighton and David Mills to the Post Office's senior management will begin to make a difference.
	On Postcomm, having a regulator in a public service will remain a problematic issue whether it is a publicly owned company such as the Post Office or a privatised utility. Wherever it is necessary for the public interest to intervene in the markets, and there is a regulator, that imposes a great deal of responsibility on that regulator, which needs to be at arm's length from the Government. I fully recognise the difficulties faced by my colleagues on the Front Bench in intervening directly. The key decisions that Ministers make about regulation concern the brief that is given to the regulator and the individual or individuals who are appointed to regulate. Let us be under no illusion. If Postcomm messes up when it produces its final report, and the universal service is not maintained because it is not financially viable, the regulator will walk away and politicians will be blamed.
	I have noticed in discussions with privatised utilities that have moved through several regulation regimes that they are always dependent on the skill and knowledge of the regulator in being able to make a judgment on the degree of competition and, where relevant, of price fixing that it can impose on a monopoly or semi-monopoly. Postcomm has to make decisions on market access from other competitors and on whether to allow an increase in the price of first-class and second-class stamps. The job of a regulator is to make a judgment on whether the industry concerned is capable of making the internal reforms and changes that are required to meet external competition and price restraints. That is what happened in relation to many of the other utilities that were privatised. Getting it right places a great deal of responsibility on Postcomm.
	One of my concerns remains the quality of the Post Office's management, because the key information on which Postcomm will make its judgment when it has finished its consultation is that provided by the Post Office. If that information is not robust or is badly put together or inadequate, there will be a grave danger of real damage being done to the Post Office in terms of postal deliveries. I stress to my colleagues on the Front Bench that that is my main anxiety.
	I voted for the model that we established, but it depends on a Post Office management that can provide good and adequate information to the regulator, and a regulator who has skill and knowledge and is prepared to seek information to make an adequate judgment on the market in postal offices—on what it is and what it should be.
	I want to consider also the post office network. We have debated the matter endlessly, but I believe that the existing network will continue to decline irrespective of what happens to the benefits system. More and more people will transfer benefits directly into their bank accounts, and fewer and fewer will collect them from the post office. The drip, drip decimation of the post office network over the past 20 years will continue.
	We must also acknowledge and make it clear to our constituents that the post office network is, to all intents and purposes, a network of private businesses. It is not run, owned and controlled by the Post Office. If it needs to be subsidised, robust and adequate systems need to be in place to assess reasonable and fair amounts of subsidy to ensure that a specific rural post office is maintained.

David Taylor: Is my hon. Friend interested in the example that I would like to cite briefly of the post office in the largest town in my constituency, Coalville? It is not only rural post offices that experience commercial problems that lead to their collapse and create social difficulties. It has happened in Coalville and although there are other post offices in the urban fringes, the Post Office, or Consignia, appears extremely slow and not especially willing to find alternative facilities for a town of 30,000 people.

David Borrow: I shall deal with that shortly, but first I want to consider support specifically for rural post offices.
	The PIU report set out a way forward, but we need to ensure that systems exist to ensure that money reaches the places where it is needed. The Post Office must properly assess the sort of rural network that is sustainable and should be sustained.
	Similar problems exist in urban areas. I accept that where there are many urban post offices in close proximity, it makes sense to have a smaller network of larger and more viable businesses to serve the area. However, the trick is moving from the current position to where we want to be in dealing with private businesses. Sub-postmasters and mistresses say that they have never felt that Post Office Counters is good at communicating and working with them or at managing the system. Unless we get the right management to cope with the essential change in the urban post office network, it will not happen.
	Many of our problems are down to getting the right management to work in the existing structure and to use the funding properly to ensure the maintenance of the post office network and the right postal delivery service. My greatest fear for both is that we may have left it too late to appoint the right sort of management to make the necessary changes to the business. Our constituents will not only suffer poorer postal services, but hundreds of them in most constituencies will experience employment problems because of the difficulties of the post office for which they work and for which they want to continue to work.

Michael Weir: In my short time as a Member of Parliament, this is the third time I have spoken about the Post Office on behalf of the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru. The direction appears no clearer, and we shall happily support the Liberal Democrat motion.
	The position of sub-post offices in Scotland and Wales is precarious and causes great anxiety. It has already been said that the Government's determination to press on with automated credit transfer means that some 40 per cent. of post offices' income will vanish. It is difficult to understand how they will be replace that.
	In opening the debate, the Minister spoke at length about network banking. However, the experience in my constituency is that banks, like many other businesses, have removed themselves from rural areas. In the past decade, banking services have retrenched out of rural areas. It reached the stage where one big bank was running an advertising campaign to try to gain a lead over its rivals on the basis that it was not closing branches.
	In my constituency, several rural post offices have closed in the past few years. In the village of Farnell, the post office closed six months ago and is unlikely to reopen. The post office in Monikie keeps going simply because the current postmistress, who wishes to retire, has agreed to stay on in the hope that a new owner can be found. If that does not happen shortly, the post office will inevitably close. A third example is the post office in Marykirk, just over the border in West Aberdeenshire. It closed last month and will be converted into a house. The people of the village face a trip to Montrose in my constituency to obtain postal services. That may not seem a long way, but it is for those who do not have a car or are elderly or disabled.
	The Minister cited the statistic, which Consignia also gave, that nine out of 10 people live within a mile of a post office. That is disingenuous when one considers the population break-up of rural areas. People in my constituency and in that of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) face much longer trips to reach a post office.
	Much has been said about the closure of post offices in the United Kingdom. In a rare bout of charity to the Government, I must say that it is not entirely their fault—the trend began some 20 years ago. In 1980–81, there were 22,475 post offices in the UK. That figure fell to just below 18,000 last year. It has been said that 547 post offices were closed in 2000–01. I appreciate that the rate has slowed, but that may be for various reasons. It is worth looking behind the statistics because they contain alarming messages for Scotland and Wales.
	Most closures have occurred in rural areas, and 64 per cent. of all Scotland's post offices are in rural areas. In 2000–01, 89 per cent. of closures were of rural post offices. That is much higher than the UK average. The position is even worse in Wales, where 70 per cent. of post offices are in rural areas. That is the highest proportion in the UK. Last year's closure rate of 6 per cent. was again much higher in Wales.
	It is not only rural post offices that are under threat. Consignia's latest restructuring plan, which was announced in March, foresees the closure of up to 3,000 urban post offices—one third of the total. The closure rate is higher in deprived urban areas. We cannot consider the Post Office purely in terms of business, balance sheets and profit and loss accounts. There is a social element to it, especially in rural and more deprived areas. That must be acknowledged.
	I should like to know more about the "your guide" proposals, which are innovative, although in some ways they seem simply a more electronic form of doing what many sub-postmasters have done for many years. Post offices have been the hub of the community.
	The motion also refers to delivery services and the universal service obligation, which is vital to Scotland and Wales. Both nations have large rural and remote areas, and delivery costs are higher to them than to densely populated urban areas. If the universal service obligation and the universal tariff are allowed to go, it will spell disaster for postal deliveries in those areas.
	The Government have previously said that they would insist on the retention of the obligation, but I would like the Minister to tell me how that would be workable in a system with a multitude of operators. Many of the players will wish to go for profitable urban routes, and there is a clear danger that rural areas in particular will be left out in the cold. It does not seem feasible to insist that one carrier, Consignia, should have a universal service obligation when others do not.
	What would such an obligation mean to a carrier operating only in an urban area? It would be very easy to fulfil the universal service obligation and guarantee a universal tariff in such a location. It would be much more difficult, however, for a carrier operating only rural deliveries. Most hon. Members on this side of the House believe that Postcomm's proposals will ultimately lead to the end of the universal service obligation and the universal tariff.
	International comparisons give serious cause for concern. In Sweden, for example, prices have increased by 72 per cent., and deliveries in rural areas are made not to the door but to cluster points along the postman's route. The number of post offices in Sweden has halved over the past 10 years, and employment in the industry has fallen by 20 per cent. In spite of that, the Swedish postal service now runs an operating deficit approaching £20 million a year. Furthermore, postal deliveries to rural areas in New Zealand now take, on average, two days longer than before.
	When Sir Rowland Hill introduced the penny post in 1840, he did so to reform a system in which many carriers were operating services of variable quality and charging whatever they liked. Mail was paid for by the addressee, and if they could not afford it they could not have it. The Postcomm proposals seem to take us back towards that system. For all those reasons, we shall support the Liberal Democrats tonight, and we urge the Government to reconsider this matter before it is too late.

Roger Gale: I am conscious of the fact that we are short of time, and I shall be brief. I would like to consolidate what I said in the two interventions that I made earlier in this very interesting debate.
	First, I very much appreciate the remarks of the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir), with which I have a great deal of sympathy. He will understand why, when I have said what I have to say. We have heard a lot about rural village post offices this afternoon, and "village" has always been synonymous with "rural". In a town called Herne Bay in my constituency, there are a number of villages. It is a town of 25,000 people, but within that town, Studd Hill, Hampton, Greenhill, Herne, Reculver, Broomfield, Beltinge, and Eddington Lane all regard themselves as villages. In that urban community, those village sub-post offices—those little private businesses—are every bit as important as the ones in the bigger towns. To suggest that it is possible to consolidate all those private businesses into a few bigger ones just because they are in a town—and to say, "That's all right, isn't it?"—is completely to gainsay the demands and requirements of the people living in the immediate vicinity of those little businesses.
	Those businesses are used by many elderly people, by young mothers with babies in prams, and by people who regard them as the shopping core—sometimes their once-weekly contact with society—of their community. We must all—not just the Minister, but all of us—be very careful before we take that away and destroy it. If we take it away, we will never get it back, and that would be one social service gone.
	Not much has been said this afternoon about the other bit of the debate on the Order Paper, which concerns the delivery service. Yes, we have rightly talked about the needs of the highlands and islands; I understand why. But who is going to compete to deliver a letter from Margate in my constituency to East Anglia overnight at the price that is now charged? Who is going to want to do that job?
	I know who is doing the delivering at the moment, and I suppose I should declare a slight interest here. My wife and I have living in our house a young lady whom we regard practically as a daughter, who also happens to be a postman. We know what time she and thousands like her all over the country get up in the small hours of a dark winter's morning when it is bucketing down with rain. She goes into the sorting offices and does her job there. She then lifts a very heavy bag on to a bicycle or into a van—she is lucky enough, most of the time, to use a van—and goes out into the dark with a torch to deliver those letters, as thousands like her do all round the country.
	Those are the people who tell the local bobby or someone like me that somebody is not well or in trouble and needs help. We have talked a lot about business, and I understand that this is a commercial business, but if we lose the expertise of all those people delivering all those letters, trudging and cycling all those miles all around the country every day except Sunday—although even on Sunday there are collections—we shall never get it back.
	I want to say to hon. Members on both sides of the House—on my own Front Bench, on the Government Front Bench and in the Liberal party—that we must not take away something that is very precious. It has been damaged by some fool who turned it into Consignia, which is about the most crass thing to have been done since we changed the tail fins on British Airways planes and ceased to "fly the flag". It is just another brand image, but it matters to people and is very precious. If we destroy it, we shall never be able to rebuild it.
	We need to take a step back and have a long hard think before we lose more of our urban village, and rural village, post offices, and before we sacrifice their work force. Yes, that work force might have Spanish practices—they need to be dealt with—but in the main, it is dedicated, hard working and does a job that most people in this House would not wish to do.

John Pugh: I apologise in advance for the brevity of this contribution, although I am not entirely sure why I am doing so. I must also apologise for not altogether concurring with my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), in that I do not think that we are talking about a project that may or may not fail; we are talking about a project that is doomed to fail.
	Only 10 years ago, we had something called the Royal Mail. For hundreds of years before that, it was a monopoly in this country. This country does not take easily to monopolies; by inclination, we do not favour them. We need—and we had—very good reasons for enforcing that monopoly. Those reasons were to do with the reliability and integrity of the mail, and with the universality of the mail—the fact that we could post a letter in one place and it would end up anywhere else in the United Kingdom for the same price, whoever posted it. Those reasons were also to do with economies of scale. Our ancestors could not visualise the possibility of hundreds of different types of letter boxes provided by different companies in different places.
	The Royal Mail was a Crown service. It was not an absolute monopoly; people could deliver mail themselves, and it called upon the Scouts at Christmas. None the less, it was a monopoly for a reason. It was very profitable, but as hon. Members have said, it had all the problems of a state monopoly. There were Spanish practices and industrial relations problems. So gradually the presumption that it should be a monopoly was questioned. It was questioned intellectually by people who had ideological hang-ups, full stop, and ideological hang-ups about state provision.
	A competitive market was thought to be better for the provision of all services, whether or not they had a social dimension. Many case histories illustrate that there are certain benefits when state monopolies are broken up. Equally, cases such as Railtrack illustrate that, following the break-up of British Rail, there have been very few benefits that the public can identify. None the less, the weight of the argument was against monopolies.
	I accept—as I expect the Minister to point out—that the nature of the mail was going to change anyway. E-mail has made it possible for people to communicate in different ways, and the volume of mail will necessarily decline, to a certain extent. The computer has had an effect on the mail service. It has also made possible the infinite quantities of junk mail which make the volume of mail very similar to what it was in the past.
	The other reason for change is that there was a legal challenge with regard to the single market. All these challenges led in the same direction: towards an end to the monopoly. The simple question was: how soon and how fast? It was a question of, "Goodbye, Royal Mail; hello, Consignia." Almost immediately after that happened, there were closures, losses and redundancies. That is all, somehow, thought to be coincidental. There is a temptation to see the whole of the present problem as one of transition and change. It has been suggested—wrongly, I believe—that some changes have already come about on the continent, but the continent was never in the position we were in in the first place.
	I am not easily persuaded that we are talking about new, innovative ways of delivering an old service, and that this is simply a change in the method of delivery, rather than a change of product. The consumer—the person actually using mail services—is now receiving services that are more expensive, that will become less frequent and less reliable, that will not necessarily be guaranteed to those in the far-flung reaches of this country and that, certainly in terms of post offices, will be far less local. People who used to be able to go to suburban centres will have to go to the centres of towns. So it is not just a question of a change of method; it is a question of a change in the product.
	There is a reason for that. Indeed, all the reasons for Royal Mail's existence are the reasons why Consignia does not work now. Economies of scale are not possible if profitable areas of business can be cherry-picked, as they can. Businesses are severely hampered if they have a universal service obligation to discharge, as they have. Reliability is not possible, or satisfactory, when a company is permanently placed in a vulnerable market situation, as Consignia is.
	Consignia is a doomed project, and at least four categories are affected. The staff are already casualties. The public are receiving diminishing services. Then there are Government finances. The Government are now having to fund closures, whereas in the past post offices made a net contribution to the Revenue. Communities, too, are losing out. In my constituency, when a sub-post office closes, the little nest of shops surrounding it suffer from less passing trade and have to close as well. Staff, the public, Government finance and communities: they all lose. It is a doomed project.
	The Government have two options. They can leave Consignia to the permanent tender mercies of Postcomm, to the unions as they fight for the remaining jobs, and to a flailing and failing management. They can let predictions of a second-class service for the ordinary consumer come true. They can adopt an arm's-length, Pontius Pilate approach, and let it all happen. Or they can simply look at the facts, step in now, and work on the premise that the old lady of John O'Groats wants a world-class service as much as the city slicker, and may have much more difficulty in finding alternatives to Royal Mail.
	This will be the Government's problem. It will come home to roost. I ask them to consider what ordinary folk want, and I say, "Do not stand aside; make it happen."

David Heath: The debate has proved that this was the right subject to discuss, and at the right time. There is clearly concern throughout the House about what is happening to postal services. My hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) set out extremely well the issues that we need to address, in a speech that was as inexorable as it was unanswerable. Indeed, we received no answers to it.
	A number of other Members made excellent speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) described the damage done to communities by closures. My hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) spoke of the centrality of the post office to small island communities. There is, in fact, little difference in that respect between an island community and a rural constituency such as mine—or indeed urban areas, to which the sub-post office network is equally important. The hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) made similar points on behalf of his constituents.
	Members of other parties also made useful contributions. The hon. Members for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow) and for Conwy (Mrs. Williams) drew attention to deficiencies in management. That, I think, is self-evident: there have certainly been management failures in the Post Office. The hon. Member for Conwy was honest enough to say that ACT posed a real threat, which is our view as well. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) took a rather more conventional line in respect of new Labour. He may have strayed towards complacency; we shall see whether his complacency is well founded.

Betty Williams: May I correct something that the hon. Gentleman said? I was not expressing my view on ACT. If the hon. Gentleman reads Hansard tomorrow, he will see that I was reading a passage from a letter from a sub-postmaster.

David Heath: I can only say that the sub-postmaster was absolutely right, and I am glad that the hon. Lady quoted him.
	In support of that, let me cite what was said in an intervention by the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey)—who spoke of the coercion inherent in the migration to bank accounts—and also the exceptional speech by the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith). I do not want to embarrass the hon. Lady, but she will be very welcome in the Lobby this evening—for the right reason: not because I am claiming a miraculous conversion to our cause in general, but because the hon. Lady has read our motion and agrees with our analysis. She has exercised independence of thought. I commend her for that, and wish that more Members were prepared to take the same attitude.
	As for the Conservatives' speeches, we heard a vigorous defence of the post office network from the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), who I think was entirely sincere. The contribution of the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) was amiable and extensive, and extraordinarily indiscreet—that being one of the reasons for our holding him in such affection. He said, "The guilty party moves on, and someone else clears up the mess," and we know that to be true. He was also sufficiently indiscreet to reveal himself as an unashamed supporter of full privatisation of the Post Office—and that, I must say, is why it is so difficult to take the comments of Conservative Front Benchers seriously.
	There may be individual Members who share our conviction that the post office network and the delivery system are crucial, but we can only look at their record. Listening to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), and observing the extraordinarily bleak picture he painted of postal services, I was reminded of the bleak picture the Conservatives also paint of the national health service. I think it is possible to identify what is wrong with a system without damning it as a whole, and damning everyone who works in it; but the hon. Gentleman nearly reached that point.
	We remember how many post offices were closed during the Conservatives' years in government. We also remember more recent events: we remember the amendments that the Conservatives were prepared to table to the Postal Services Bill, which would have reduced the reserved area and the universal service obligation. There has clearly been no change in their underlying policy. But let us return to the Government of today, and consider what the Minister said.
	I have a great deal of time for the Minister—I hope that does not embarrass him—but he did not answer the questions, possibly because he cannot. One of the problems we always encounter when discussing this issue is a faint feeling that DTI Ministers are put up to respond to questions to which they do not know the answers. That is partly because, as we know, the universal bank programme has been taken away: it has been moved to the Department for Work and Pensions, and Mr. Secretary Darling is in charge—I am sorry; I have forgotten his constituency. That may be the reason for the remarkable degree of ministerial imprecision and obfuscation.
	Let us consider the key points that have been raised today. First, let us deal with delivery, which is crucial to the communities we all represent. In fact, collections are almost more important: without an adequate collection service it is difficult for businesses, in particular, to survive.
	The hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale made an important point about the primacy of the universal service obligation for Postcomm. Why, she asked, does Postcomm not appear to be giving priority to an aspect that Parliament felt it had made a clear priority? What is the Government's attitude to this? It is no good saying that it is a matter for someone else. We are dealing with legislation that has been passed by the House and that affects an industry for which we all have corporate responsibility. It is for Ministers to explain why there appears to be a movement towards aggressive and accelerated competition which is doing no good whatsoever to the structure of postal services in the UK.
	What will happen if Consignia fails to deliver its universal service obligation, quite apart from the fact that constituencies that are not in profitable postal service areas will lose the services on which they depend? Will there be a fine? That will help Consignia a great deal, given its present financial state. Will it lose its licence; and if so, what will happen to the UK postal service, for that is what is at stake?
	Let me turn to the post office network, a matter that is dear to the heart of so many hon. Members and one that we have discussed on many occasions. We have heard the Government's rhetoric and we applaud their intentions, so let us not be distracted into pretending that they do not share our aspiration to maintain the post office network. We are not discussing whether the Government wish to do that, but whether they have done so and whether they will do so in future. The reality is that there has been a continuation of closures—547 sub-post offices closed in 2001.
	What issues need to be addressed? The Minister said that he was concerned to achieve an outstanding retail experience within the post office network. I would love an outstanding retail experience when I go to the post office, but a great number of recipients of pensions and benefits do not want an outstanding retail experience; they just want to get the money on which they depend, in cash, on the day they need it.
	It is important that Ministers explain how they will ensure that the collection of pensions and benefits in cash, which they have promised on so many occasions will continue. The promised mechanism is the universal bank service, particularly the post office card account. However there is a difficulty: design and investment decisions have been left so very late, and the clock is ticking. The system has to be in place by April 2003, yet we know that the original contracts were not let to the IT firm—EDS—until last November, and we heard from the Minister this evening that the contracts with post offices are not yet complete. There is no clarity, no decision and no certainty that the systems will be up and running when they are needed. A whole migration programme needs to be put in place and the training of post office staff has not started and cannot start yet. That is why we are so concerned.
	When we look at other Government Departments such as the Ministry of Defence, which deals with war pensions, we find that war pensions will no longer be paid out in post offices. The decision has been taken—end of story. What sort of communication is that within a Government who claim to be taking the matter seriously?
	We have heard about the so-called actively managed choice. It is clear from anecdotal and other evidence that Consignia will strain every sinew to prevent people from having post office bank cards. That is a tragedy for post offices and for the least well-off who require such a service.
	We still have, nagging at the back of our minds, the fact that £400 million of replacement income for the sub-post offices has to be found somewhere. If it cannot be found from the footfall of benefit and pension claimants, there will be a serious problem.
	We remain worried about the rural network. We have already heard how important it is and I applaud what the Government have done in its defence. Let me make a confession to the House: far from closing post offices in my constituency, I have opened two in the past two months. I have cut the tape on post offices in Sparkford and Henstridge and that is good news, although there have been many closures across the country. We require the overall network to be maintained, and despite the funds and support available, particularly in rural areas, there is no evidence of that yet.
	There is also the issue of so-called urban re-intervention. We know that post offices are closing. We acknowledge that it is sensible to close post offices that are next door to one another if one post office can provide a comparable service with no difficulty of access for the public, but is there a proper system for ensuring that people in urban areas who need access to post offices will continue to have it? We know that Postwatch is to take on the arbitration of these matters, but we do not know whether it will have the money to pay for it.
	We have not been told whether the £270 million in the comprehensive review and the Labour manifesto of 2001 includes the £180 million which has been set aside for compensation or whether it is all part of the bigger picture. We do not know about "your guide", which was hailed as a great success story. We were told that "your guide" in Leicestershire was a marvellous success and that it would be rolled out across the country. Now there will be no decision until June.
	We do not know what the Government will do if the IT systems are not in place by April 2003. They rejected our amendments to the Tax Credits Bill which would have given them the option, so let them tell us tonight how they will preserve the service, the network and the delivery systems. I do not believe that they can give us those answers and that is why we must continue to express our concern.

Nigel Griffiths: I am sorry that the Liberal Democrats have left me only three minutes to respond to the debate—[Interruption.]

Paul Tyler: The Minister seems to be badly informed. The debate does not have to end at 7 pm. We hope that he will give us full answers, and then we will have a Division.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is quite right. The debate does not have to conclude at 7 pm.

Nigel Griffiths: That is excellent, because it will give me the chance to tell the House about the Liberal Democrats' record, about which I shall say more in a moment.
	The debate demonstrates the strength of feeling with which the Post Office and the post office network are regarded in the House and throughout the country. No one more than I appreciates the work of more than 200,000 postal staff and the many thousands of sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses who deliver an excellent service.
	I am grateful for the many constructive comments that have been made and I welcome the opportunity to respond to as many of them as possible. As everyone knows, the Post Office touches everyone's lives like no other industry in Britain. It is clear from the debate that all hon. Members want it to provide a first-class postal service and network fit for the 21st century. That is why we are delivering the investment and the reform that the business has long needed.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith) made some telling points. I had the pleasure of visiting her constituency recently, so I know how in tune she is with her constituents. She asked about the 1p increase in the price of stamps. I can confirm that this week Consignia applied to raise the price of a second-class stamp from 19p to 20p and the price of a first-class stamp from 27p to 28p. That will now be considered by the regulator, and any representations that my hon. Friend or anyone else wishes to make will be taken into account. Even with that increase, the House will want to know that the cost of sending a standard letter in Britain will remain cheaper than almost anywhere else in the world. Even if we apply the proposed new first class charge of 28p—I stress that it is a proposal—it will still be cheaper than the cheapest in other EU countries. Spain charges the equivalent of 29p, and Italy—the highest—the equivalent of 97p. To put the matter in perspective, even if the proposed rise is allowed, the cost would still be reasonable. Indeed, it would be very low in European terms.
	In the light of the intervention by the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir), we must ask how much it would cost to send a stamp in an independent Scotland. The more important question for the Scottish National party, I suspect, is whose head would appear on the stamp. Would it be John Swinney's, or that of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond)? I should certainly like to be party to that internal SNP discussion.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale raised another serious point—the second delivery. She will know that only 4 per cent. of items are delivered by second delivery, but that they absorb 20 per cent. of costs—a fact that must be taken into account by the regulator when considering Consignia's proposals. She also raised the issue of consultation, as did several other hon. Members. In response to meetings with Members of this House, and to representations from others with an interest, the consultation period was extended by a full month, so that everyone affected could make proper representations.
	My hon. Friend also raised the important question of frequency of collection. So far, the consultation has concerned itself with second delivery, rather than frequency of collection, but we regard collection as key to the future commercial success of Consignia and the Post Office. They will want to take account of the need for a full network of uplifts to ensure that a place in the market is maintained. I urge my hon. Friend not to vote with the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page)—who called for the immediate privatisation of the Post Office—and the Liberal Democrats. Having recently taken over Norwich city council, the Liberal Democrats have promised to privatise the housing service and the benefits service, so at a national level they would doubtless try to privatise the Post Office as well. Liberal Democrat councils are not a model of good practice in local government, but time prevents me from discussing that issue.
	In a witty and incisive contribution—in fact, it was one of the best speeches of this year—my hon. Friend the Member for Conwy (Mrs. Williams) put the best case yet for strengthening the Post Office's management team. I can assure her that we have done just that. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Minister—[Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Conversations are taking place throughout the Chamber—[Interruption.] Order. Hon. Members must listen to the Minister who is responding to the debate.

Nigel Griffiths: The management team has been strengthened through the appointment of Marisa Cassoni, the new financial director; David Mills, the chief executive of the network, who had a distinguished record with HSBC; and Allan Leighton, whose success in turning round and growing Asda is legendary. I hope that that reassures my hon. Friend and other hon. Members.
	My hon. Friend also mentioned closures, about which every right hon. and hon. Member feels strongly. I am pleased that the rate of closure in Wales has more than halved, and that, in addition to the opening of the two branches to which reference was made, a further 169 opened in the previous financial year. As part of the Government's £2 million scheme, £7,000 has been given to Mrs. Jones to ensure the construction of a post office building and counter in Adfa, in Powys. Similar examples can be cited throughout the length and breadth of the country.
	I remind the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter), who also mentioned closures, that in 18 years of Conservative government the rate of closure was 16 a month. In his south-west region, 33 branches closed last year—equivalent to the number that closed every two months when his party were in government.
	My hon. Friend the Minister for E-Commerce and Competitiveness dealt well with the other contributions that were made, and I urge the House to reject the motion.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
	The House divided: Ayes 195, Noes 307.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
	Mr. Deputy Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House applauds the Government's decision to accept all 24 of the PIU recommendations in its June 2000 report "Counter Revolution—Modernising the Post Office Network"; notes that Consignia is committed to preventing avoidable closures of rural post offices and has drawn up a code of conduct on how this is to be implemented in conjunction with the consumer watchdog, Postwatch; further applauds the decision of the Government to grant the greater commercial freedom to Consignia that management and unions had long called for; welcomes the action of the Government in appointing a new chairman of Consignia and a new chief executive of Post Office Ltd. and to enshrine in legislation the primary duty of the regulator to preserve the universal service; further applauds the commitment of the Government to a national network of post offices; and further notes the commitment by Post Office Ltd. to ensure that 95 per cent. of people in urban areas will live within a mile of a post office, and the majority within half a mile.

Johannesburg Summit

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Malcolm Bruce: I beg to move,
	That this House welcomes the fact that the Prime Minister will be attending the Johannesburg Earth Summit in September, but regrets that the UK is not providing co-ordinated internal or external leadership to ensure the Summit's success, particularly given rising emission of carbon dioxide in the last two years in the UK and the apparent emphasis by the Government on UK business interests ahead of the needs of developing countries; notes with concern the United States' role in the removal of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change's Chair and for their reneging on the Kyoto Protocol; further notes the damage such events may have on the relationship between rich and poor nations in the run-up to the Summit and the potential negative impact on both environmental and political stability, particularly in view of the close co-operation between the UK Government and US Administration and concern by leading NGOs that the Summit, aiming to reduce inequalities between rich and poor nations and promote an improving world order, may be heading for failure; calls on the Government to take a greater role in leading international discussions in the run-up to Johannesburg and promoting related activities in the UK, particularly the need to employ more sustainable solutions and set long-term targets for the use of renewable energy; and calls on the Government genuinely to put the environment at the heart of government, developing the policies and conditions which will promote local action for truly sustainable agriculture, waste, water management, energy and transport.
	The motion deals with the extremely important matter of the UK's role at the Johannesburg summit in promoting sustainability. We have initiated the debate because we believe that it is vital for world order and stability for rich nations—of which Britain is one—to demonstrate a clear and unequivocal commitment to alleviating world poverty. It is because we see it in that light that my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) will be winding up the debate for the Liberal Democrats. I understand that the Under-Secretary of State for International Development will then reply to the debate.
	We need action world wide to prevent further degradation of the planet and reverse the damage that has been done, particularly in the past 200 years. We hold the earth in trust for future generations and should seek to use it on sustainable terms. We should not take out more than we put in.
	We contend that peace and stability in the world can be achieved only if a genuine partnership between rich and poor people and nations takes a common approach to development. Developed economies must demonstrate unequivocally that we will not continue to exploit the lion's share of the world's resources and that we will create the space, in partnership, and the appropriate technology to enable the poorest people on earth to achieve real improvements in their quality and standard of life.
	I observed that, with her usual courtesy, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was present at both the beginning and end of the previous debate. It surprises me not at all that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is not in her place—she never shows much interest in these matters. I welcome the Minister who will reply to the debate, but the right hon. Lady does lead on the matter. No doubt she is busy packing for her trip to Bali.
	There is a serious point behind this observation. There is, in our view, a moral imperative to address world poverty, but it is also enlightened self-interest. The tectonic plates of the cold war have shifted, creating a freer, more unpredictable, unstable and risky world. Some people exploit the fears of the most deprived and create resentment so that millions of people migrate around the world in the hope of a better life. That creates the considerable problems with which we are having to wrestle.
	The world summit in Johannesburg is—or should be—a crucial milestone in addressing these issues. It comes 10 years after the Rio summit started a process of addressing the imbalance of poverty and confronted the need to deal with environmental pressures. It is a question not only of dealing with climate change but of creating the potential for economic development that does not freeze the status of the developed and undeveloped world. There is a fear that we, the rich, will hang on to what we have and cannot allow the poor to develop and further deplete the planet's resources. So it is essential, if we are to address this tension, that Johannesburg be a success and produce a treaty with real commitments, not just a series of bilateral arrangements.
	I believe that the whole House welcomes the Prime Minister's early commitment to attend the summit. It is right that he should be there, but it is not clear what he will say or whether the United Kingdom is prepared and able to take a lead in ensuring the necessary progress.
	The Secretary of State has been under fire for the apparent extravagance of her planned attendance at the final preparation committee for the summit in Bali next month. It is ironic that Ministers and their civil servants are reported to be spending about £200,000 or £300,000 to attend a preparatory meeting in a holiday paradise for a summit whose prime purpose is to provide a beacon of hope and international action for the poorest people on earth. We are not saying that the Secretary of State should not be there, but if she believes that it is important enough to take a delegation of this size to take the matter forward, surely it is also important that she make a statement to the House about why she is going and what she is hoping to achieve. Moreover, when she comes back, she should tell us what has been done to prepare the way for the Prime Minister to lead a positive engagement for the United Kingdom Government in Johannesburg. Why does she never come to the House and tell us what she is doing? Should she not explain to British taxpayers what she claims to be doing on their behalf?
	The Secretary of State claims on her website and in her circulars that she wants to involve the widest range of stakeholders in the preparations for Johannesburg, yet she has refused to meet me or, I understand, the Conservative shadow Secretary of State. She does not want to involve Back Benchers in the process, but she will be taking four schoolchildren with her as part of the Government delegation to Johannesburg. If the Secretary of State is serious and we share common values, should she not, like her counterparts in many other countries, take a broad delegation and ensure that we are all consulted and that this House has a real say in the agenda? She has shown no interest in involving the House in that way.
	Attached to the motion is a reference to the report of the Select Committee on Environmental Audit. I thank the Committee for its helpful report. Its verdict on the Government is mixed, as is mine. The Committee welcomes the Prime Minister's planned attendance but points to the inadequacy of DEFRA's resources and alerts the House to the dangers of the summit falling apart and falling far short of the legitimate expectations of the developing world. Indeed, some non-governmental organisations have become so frustrated at the way in which the agenda has become bogged down that they suggest it might be better if the whole event were cancelled. It is up to Governments to show that they have the commitment to make it succeed.
	Specifically, the Committee calls on the Government to generate some enthusiasm for the event. I suggest that it is the lack of a clear explanation of why a large delegation is going to Bali that has attracted adverse criticism and undermined whatever case the Government wanted to make. Most people would be astonished to hear of this trip, but they would not have been if the ground had been prepared and an explanation given to show that this is a major event.

Ian Lucas: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that if a full explanation had been given to the press reporting these matters, they would have given as much information to the public about the true purpose of the visit as we would all like?

Malcolm Bruce: My point is that it would have helped if the Secretary of State had explained to the House why she was going. She could then have benefited from pointing out that we had had a debate about it.
	We accept that the Government have recorded some important achievements in shifting the balance of resources to poorer countries. We want to give acknowledgement and credit where it is due. The Chancellor's debt reduction initiative has rightly attracted wide support from the public and international agencies. The UK's aid record is better than that of many countries, and at least the commitment to a 0.7 per cent. target is welcome, although, like the Environmental Audit Committee, we would like a firm timetable as to when that will be achieved.
	Of course, we support the commitment made by the Secretary of State, in one of only two statements that she has made to the House since her appointment, to ratify the Kyoto protocol. However, we are not so sanguine about the Government achieving the target and are critical that it is based on a "business as usual" approach following the dash for gas. It does not include a radical drive towards serious emission reductions as a result of innovative policies. This, in the Liberal Democrats' view, is a central issue. We have put the environment at the heart of our thinking. Environmental policies were a green thread through our manifesto. We gained credit from a number of agencies for the priority that we gave these matters.
	We also believe that it has proved to be a mistake to make environment and transport the responsibilities of separate Departments, given the need to reduce vehicle emissions and the congestion that makes the problem worse. It is also strange that DEFRA, the Department responsible for implementing the Kyoto protocol, does not have the lead on energy policy, which is crucial to achieving the protocol.

Jon Owen Jones: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the link between Kyoto and transport policies. He chides the Government for being insufficiently robust in putting their case to the public. I remind the hon. Gentleman that when there was a fuel dispute in this country, the Liberal Democrat party was the first to water down the commitments that it had made on fuel taxes.
	The criticism applies to every party in the House; each of them has been prepared to water down their environmental policy commitments.

Malcolm Bruce: The hon. Gentleman is factually incorrect. First, we opposed the introduction of fuel taxes without a sustainable transport strategy and voted against them for that reason. Furthermore, we predicted the problems that have arisen.
	Too often, the Government put up taxes by the back door—the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a master of that—and then claimed that they had raised revenue for the benefit of the environment. It never was for the benefit of the environment—it was for the benefit of the Chancellor's war chest.
	For the past two years, emissions of greenhouse gases have been rising, contrary to the forecasts that they would fall. The Government put that down to a temporary switch to coal, but that only confirms the point that the projected reduction in emissions arose as a result not of environmental policy but of economic decisions—shutting down our coal industry and switching to gas-fired power stations. There was not a scintilla of action on the environment.
	The Minister for Industry and Energy used the rise in emissions to reactivate his well-known support for nuclear power; that served only to undermine the drive for the renewable energy of which he is—contradictorily—also in favour. To reopen the expansion of nuclear power confuses the message both at home and abroad. If that is the preferred energy source of the developed world and its priority for contributing to the reduction of greenhouse gases, there would be an understandable demand for nuclear power from developing countries. The problems associated with nuclear waste, as well as the risk of accidents and sabotage, would then multiply world wide on an unprecedented scale.
	By contrast, we need a clear and ambitious drive from countries such as the UK for all forms of renewable energy. That would show commitment to sustainability at home and would help to develop appropriate sustainable technology for export. Indeed, when ScottishPower lobbied me recently, I was surprised to be asked to maintain our firm commitment to phase out nuclear power at the end of its natural life, rather than holding up the drive to renewables by extending it, thus making it difficult for the company to make the commitment that it wants to make to long-term investment in renewable energy.
	At the same time, the Export Credits Guarantee Department is pursuing a strategy that seems uninformed by the Kyoto priorities—with no reference at all to the Kyoto agreement. On average, the department gives support worth £2 billion a year to fossil fuel and nuclear power generation projects. It is estimated that those projects will emit at least 52 million tonnes of carbon dioxide as long as they are in operation. Our commitment to the Kyoto process seems to be that we undertake to reduce our emissions at home while giving export credit guarantees to promote emissions elsewhere—exporting the problem rather than helping to tackle it.
	In the sphere of export credit guarantees, as in those of overseas aid and development and the needs of the poor, the Government are highlighting the benefits to British business. They have even pointed out that the summit could be good for British business, instead of talking about the world's poor. We do not object to the involvement of business but that should not undermine our fundamental commitment to help the poorest people of the world.

John Redwood: How would the hon. Gentleman resolve the tension between the wish for development to enable the 3 billion people on low incomes to make progress, which will mean that they burn much more energy, thereby giving rise to more emissions and pollution, and the obvious wish to reduce pollution? Is he saying that the west should make an even greater commitment to reducing its emissions to leave scope for the poorer countries to burn more energy?

Malcolm Bruce: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention, although I must point out that if he had been following my argument, he would have realised that that is exactly what I was saying.
	We are saying that by giving priority to the development of sustainable technology we shall benefit ourselves—by creating space under the global umbrella for us to develop without adding to the depletion of the world's resources. We shall also create space for the developing countries to release emissions if we develop sustainable technology at home—we can share things out. The global objective should be to create a framework in which total emissions are falling. As the developed world accounts for 80 per cent. of those emissions, it is self-evidently true that the developed world must make a bigger contribution. That is what helping the poor is about.

Simon Thomas: Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that the economic benefits to this country from both developing and selling the technology are being lost because other countries, especially in Europe, are stealing a march on us? For example, in Germany a 100,000-roof programme for solar installation has been under way for several years. Furthermore, companies in Germany see their market as sub-Saharan Africa and are selling stand-alone, portable units in that area. We are missing out on that initiative; our companies do not have the opportunity to develop and to take advantage of international markets.

Malcolm Bruce: The hon. Gentleman makes a characteristically constructive intervention. Our trip to Germany with PRASEG—the all-party group on renewable and sustainable energy—was not wasted. The Germans were almost laughing at us; they told us that 15 years ago Britain was the world leader in wind technology—a position now held by Denmark, followed by Germany, Spain, India and the United States. Nowadays, we are nowhere because we did not support the development of that technology, while other countries had faith that it would deliver results.
	It might be a good idea—perhaps the Government would promote it—to get some of our leading companies to form an environmental policy committee that would identify and advance technologies specifically to develop the environmental initiatives that flowed from Rio, and extend them in Johannesburg. I fully appreciate that the technology will have to come from the private companies that drive the research, but there must be a clear framework of understanding of the objectives of the peoples of the world.

Mark Francois: The hon. Gentleman makes considerable play of the need to promote renewable energy and has made several references to wind technology. Will he explain why his Liberal Democrat colleagues in the Welsh Assembly often oppose planning applications for the exploitation of wind technology in Wales?

Malcolm Bruce: The Assembly Members must speak for themselves. The one thing that we learned—it was as true in Denmark as it was in Germany—is that the Germans went for indicative planning to try to identify the areas that were environmentally the least exposed and would benefit from wind energy. By not adopting enough indicative planning, the Government leave it open to anyone to apply to build a wind farm anywhere. Unfortunately the nuclear industry is not dead and I suspect that some people promote wind farms that they know will be unpopular in the hope of generating objections so that they can prove that we need nuclear power. That is not acceptable.
	I remind the hon. Gentleman that there is also massive potential for offshore wind technology, which could deliver substantial amounts of energy with much less environmental intrusion. We need the will to engage.

Gareth Thomas: The hon. Gentleman probably has not yet reached the part of his speech where he praises the Government for significantly increasing their investment in renewable energy—about £260 million. What is the difference between the energy policy committee that he proposes and the already established UK Business Council for Sustainable Energy, which the Government have enthusiastically backed and with which they have already begun to work?

Malcolm Bruce: The difference is that I was talking about the whole environmental agenda—not just energy. I do not disagree with the validity of the hon. Gentleman's point. I am trying to widen and broaden the debate in a helpful way, so that business is a partner in the delivery of international policy.
	I am sure that the Minister for the Environment will not be surprised if I ask him to explain the Government's position on the Greenpeace and Body Shop initiative, on which an early-day motion has been tabled. Several NGOs support that campaign and want to secure a commitment at the Johannesburg summit to deliver clean, renewable energy to 2 billion of the poorest people.
	The Minister for Industry and Energy seems to support that initiative in the quotes that I have seen, but the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs seem to play down expectations not only of that, but of the whole summit. So it would be good to have a clear indication of the Government's attitude and their reasons for adopting it. If the United Kingdom Government were to endorse that initiative positively—if they were to run with it—they would give a clear signal of our commitment to change things at Johannesburg. That would get us out from the coat tails of apparently supporting the actions of the United States and the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries, which oppose that initiative and seem to want to undermine the whole summit.
	I want to refer to the recent events in which Dr. Robert Watson was removed as chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. That was a shame. The British Government said that they supported Dr. Watson, but we all know that his removal happened under pressure from the US Administration and, apparently, at the instigation of Exxon. If a man is opposed on climate change by Exxon, I suggest that that man is doing a pretty good job. His removal has sent out a negative signal.
	The argument, which the Government have substantiated, that Dr. Pachauri—who is an Indian and is replacing Dr. Watson—is a representative of a developing country does not go far. Indeed, that is the first time that I have heard the Americans claim that they wanted anyone from a developing country to be the chairman of anything at the United Nations, and it suggests that arms have been twisted and that the issue has been fixed.
	All this reinforces the resentment, which I hear in many quarters, about the fact that the US is trying to undermine the Kyoto protocol. Not only is the US not participating; it is actively trying to undermine it. It wants to resist any further commitments in binding treaties on the environment or on the distribution of resources in rich and poor countries.
	I am told that the US is working up a series of probably quite imaginative bilateral initiatives. There is nothing wrong with those initiatives in themselves, but I warn the House to see them for what they are: an effective smokescreen for the US efforts to ensure that Johannesburg does not produce any real advance. Frankly, bilateral agreements do not require summits. Summits are designed to produce international binding agreements on Governments, not bilateral trade arrangements.
	In the circumstances, the House has to consider the fact that the United Kingdom Government's close association with the Bush Administration will leave us deeply damaged if the proposals are undermined. We are right to press the Government to take their own position and to give a clear signal that the United Kingdom is determined to work for a positive outcome determined not by the US or the United Kingdom, but by the developing countries.
	It is more than sad that the world's only superpower is turning in on itself and turning its back on the poor of the earth. It will be even sadder if a country of the United Kingdom's stature and wealth is so intent on maintaining good relations with Washington that we are marked as colluding in this selfish, ugly, wrong-headed and ultimately counter-productive stance.
	Some people say that the Americans are engaging in the climate change process, but I suggest that that is a deception. The US says that it is interested in emissions trading, but on the basis of lifting current regulations and allowing emissions to rise dramatically. That represents a total negation of everything that the Kyoto protocol is about, and we should not for a minute suggest that that is credible or defensible policy that we should endorse. Indeed, I wish that Ministers had been more forthright about that.
	In the end, the United Kingdom will be credible in the world only if we energetically pursue consistent policies at home and abroad. I have already referred to the shortcomings of our energy and transport policies and inconsistencies in the ECGD.
	Our motion is not intended as a broadside on Government policy. There are areas of common agreement, and we share the objectives that the Government are pursuing. However, it is completely proper for a party that describes itself as the effective Opposition to show that, although we share the Government's intentions, we express real concern about the risk that the Government will face failure and embarrassment.
	The Minister for the Environment has been widely praised for many of his commitments and initiatives. I certainly do not question his commitment. However, as I said last Friday in the debate on the Home Energy Conservation Bill, I am not sure that he is well served by all the people around him, or above him. He is constrained in securing the policies that would make a genuine difference and would give the Government the credibility that I know, from his rhetoric and his energetic hard work behind the scenes, he wants to deliver.
	In that context, the Government amendment smacks of complacency. It seems to imply that setting targets for the Kyoto protocol achieves them—it does not. In any case, those targets should be much more ambitious. Cambridge Econometrics shows in its model that it does not accept the Government's contention in the amendment that CO 2 will rise and that the Government will miss the Kyoto protocol targets unless they take concerted action now. That is the problem for the Government because they were suggesting, "Of course we will stand up for Kyoto. It involves no pain, but some gain. We have already achieved the reductions, so we have to do nothing at all—business as usual will deliver." The indications are that business as usual will not deliver, but the Government amendment implies that they still think that it will, but they will miss the target if they do nothing.
	The gas emissions trading scheme mentioned in the Government amendment is a first, but it is flawed. At a cost in excess of £200 million of taxpayers' money, companies have been credited with savings that they have already made—the Government required them to make those savings—or are committed to make. In effect, the Government have said, "Here is £200 million. Go out and trade it." Any market will be a success if the Government give it that amount of free goods to float it. That does not prove that anything has been delivered. The scheme is voluntary. It does not fit the European Union scheme and it will consequently have to be phased out in a short period.
	The Minister will know that we chided the Government's poor record on waste minimisation and recycling. More money seems to have gone into church restoration than into waste reduction. Waste reduction targets are being missed, unprocessed fridges are pilling up and tens of thousands of abandoned cars are being set alight regularly at huge cost. If the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs really wants to engage, as she suggests she does, with the widest range of stakeholders in the run-up to the Johannesburg earth summit, should not she start with the House?

Bob Russell: She is on a caravan tour around the country.

Malcolm Bruce: Well, I hope that she takes her caravan to Bali. It really is the most important environmental summit for 10 years. I should like to suggest, through the Minister, to the Secretary of State—I gather that she was hovering around the door a while ago, but has not yet had the courtesy to come into the Chamber—that if she does not come to the House to tell us why she is going to Bali or what she did there, she will find no credibility for anything that she does on those issues among my hon. Friends. She cannot expect to be believed or taken seriously if she does not take the House seriously and does not engage in the debate that we alone have initiated. No one else has initiated a debate on this important subject. The debate should have taken place in Government time; they should have wanted to tell the House what they were doing, rather than waiting for an Opposition party to raise the issue.
	Where is the big, distinctive idea that the United Kingdom should take to the summit? May I suggest to the Minister and the House that we are not the only people who need answers? If the Prime Minister were here, I would tell him that he needs answers. He is the guy who will be standing up for the United Kingdom at Johannesburg in September. [Interruption.] Hon. Members may say thank goodness for that, but he has nothing to say or to offer; he has not yet explained his policy. If he does not find answers to those questions, he will be in real danger of finding himself the first to sign up to the summit with the least to say on delivery. Indeed, worse than that, he might have colluded in ensuring that the summit failed when action by him and his team could have made it a success. The danger for the Prime Minister is that he could end up with a very red face at what is supposed to be the greenest of international summits.

Michael Meacher: I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
	'applauds the leadership the UK is showing domestically and within the European Union, the G8 and the United Nations for the World Summit on Sustainable Development; welcomes the fact that the Prime Minister intends to attend the Summit; further welcomes the UK's climate change programme which is estimated to overshoot its Kyoto target of a 12.5 per cent. cut in 1990 levels of greenhouse gas emissions by 2012, reaching a cut of 23 per cent.; commends the introduction in the UK last month of the world's first economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme; further welcomes the commitment in the Budget to significant increases in the landfill tax to promote recycling and waste minimisation; further applauds the fact that drinking water, river water and bathing water are at the highest ever quality; and calls upon the Government to continue to tackle global poverty through sustainable development.'.
	I congratulate the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) on choosing to debate an issue of overarching importance, but I was saddened that he immediately chose unerringly to lower the tone by making some cheap and over-heated references to the delegation to the Bali conference, which he trivialises by making unnecessarily personal references to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I am happy to tell him why my right hon. Friend is going there, as he does not seem to know. It is an international conference of key importance to the United Kingdom. The United Nations asked for three days of high-level negotiating time, and that is exactly the duration of the high-level ministerial segment, from 5 to 7 June. Outstanding negotiations need to be hammered out if the world summit on sustainable development is to be a success. Indeed, there is a view, which I think that I share, that, in some senses, if this conference focuses on and refines the key issues for Ministers to settle at the final conference, it will be more important than Johannesburg. The hard work of bringing down 150 pages of text to a manageable set of worthwhile recommendations, conclusions, proposals and decisions could be undertaken at Bali.
	The hon. Member for Gordon is right—although he could have said a lot more about it—that there is a lot wrong with our world. Since 1992, the divide between rich and poor has widened dramatically. Fifteen per cent. of the world's population, in high-income countries, accounts for more than half of total consumption, while the poorest 40 per cent. accounts for only about one tenth. Aid levels have decreased. Africa's share of the world economy has declined, while its population has grown. Desertification affects 70 per cent. of all dry lands, and threatens the livelihoods of more than 1 billion people—about one sixth of the entire world population. We lost 4 per cent. of the world's forest area during the 1990s, after Rio. More than 11,000 species are at risk of extinction. I could go on. There is no question but that this summit is about matters of unparalleled importance for all countries and all people across the world.

Simon Hughes: Given the Minister's accurate analysis of the growing inequalities across the world, particularly between the very rich and the rest of the world, is it the Government's policy that, as part of creating a more sustainable world, there should be redistribution of wealth across the planet, within all countries of the planet, and within this country, too?

Michael Meacher: It is our policy that there should be redistribution across the world, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has achieved world renown for her championship of the demand that the number of people on the Earth living in absolute poverty should be halved by 2015. That is a stunning demand to make, and she has put herself at the head of it. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as the hon. Member for Gordon was kind enough to say, has again instigated major moves by the rich countries, particularly the Paris Club, on debt remission and trying to restore the capacity for growth of many of the most highly indebted poorest countries.
	The summit comes on the back of the millennium declaration, which gave us the millennium development goals. They offer a set of clear targets on poverty reduction: on education, on halving the proportion of people who suffer from hunger and of people without access to safe drinking water, and on halting the spread of AIDS.

Tony Baldry: Will the Minister confirm that the Government are intent at Johannesburg on pushing issues such as poverty eradication and access to clean water rather than climate change and biodiversity, in relation to which frameworks are already largely established?

Michael Meacher: Yes. That is a helpful intervention. The hon. Member for Gordon spoke at considerable length about climate change. There is, of course, the UN framework convention on climate change, and there is a parallel process with the conference of the parties, which effectively deals with climate change. The emphasis of Johannesburg should and will be on other issues, such as those to which the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) referred, and particularly on fresh water, sanitation and energy.

John Redwood: I have a serious question that I am sure the Minister will want to answer. On debt reduction for poorer countries, does he think it wise to pay off debt in countries where there are civil wars or heavy military expenditure by the state, or does he think that those debts should not be reduced?

Michael Meacher: That is a difficult question, and no one can give a glib answer to it. There is little point in providing aid or debt remission—which come to much the same thing in the end—if that money is to be corruptly or otherwise distorted for the purposes of the ruling elite. That is an issue to which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for International Development may refer in his reply. It is an issue for the Department for International Development in particular, and it has taken action on that basis. Good governance is an issue, but there is a real problem: such a policy can be exercised only with great care, because cutting off aid or debt remission to undermine a leadership that is perceived to be destroying a country can have unintended and inadvertent effects on the wider population that can be truly dreadful. It is a very difficult decision to have to make and it can be made only on the merits of each case and on the basis of the best available information.
	Johannesburg also follows last year's Doha trade talks and the Doha development agenda, which is significant because poor countries need to be able to feel the benefits from participating in the wider global trading system. That initiated a further World Trade Organisation round, which is regarded as a pro-poor round—that remains to be seen. Developed countries committed themselves to improving market access for those goods of most interest to developing countries, including agriculture and textiles. That is vital. We live in a world in which we spend only $50 billion a year on aid but $350 billion a year on agricultural subsidies, which are very largely concentrated on the rich countries.

David Drew: Surely this is the area in which we should be most critical of the United States. Its conclusion that it can save its agriculture only with a massive increase in subsidies will make an enormous difference by stopping the third world being able to trade with it. Cannot we take the lead by reforming, once and for all, the common agricultural policy to get rid of these ridiculous subsidies?

Michael Meacher: I am pleased to say that I was at Doha, and one of the best results of that conference was a commitment, which was universally agreed—India was very reluctant, but it finally agreed—to a set of proposals and decisions that included the removal of export subsidies and perverse incentives and giving developing countries much greater trade access to the rich world. I hope that that can be carried out—a ministerial declaration is one thing, but negotiating such a change is another—as those are the most profound ministerial commitments that have been made, as far as I know, so far.
	We have also recently had the Monterrey conference on financing for development, which, despite not reaching the strength of consensus for which we might have hoped, at least generated a promised extra $12 billion a year of aid by 2006. That is nowhere near the figure proposed by Zedillo, the former Mexican President, who looked into the issue on behalf of the United Nations and suggested that to meet the millennium development goals an extra $60 billion a year was needed. However, the European Union again led the way at that conference and we have seen some movement by the United States.
	Monterrey promised extra aid to support developing countries' efforts, so it has been recognised from the very beginning of the process that we will have to focus on actions. The outcomes at the end of the summit should be, in our view, a short political declaration and a detailed action plan. I underline the words "detailed action plan" several times. We need that or a Johannesburg programme of action. That is the litmus test by which we should judge the conference—the specificity, the range, the precision and the detail of the commitments.
	A third outcome from Johannesburg—if it happens—would be novel for the UN process. It would be a range of business and non-governmental organisation partnerships that will take action on specific issues such as water and energy. It would be not just an intergovernmental agreement—we need that—but a recognition that the power structures in developed societies are now much wider. If we do not involve business and civil society, we will not achieve the dissemination of our goals so well. The UK has already brought together chief executive officers from the key sectors and NGO leaders to develop innovative strategies and to promote sustainable development in some of the issues that will come up at Johannesburg—water, energy, tourism, finance and forestry.
	What about the substance of the summit? Poverty eradication will be a top priority, and that is precisely why Johannesburg in South Africa was chosen. Environmental problems are often a cause of poverty and generally hit the poor hardest. Sudden natural shocks, such as floods, and long-term trends, such as biodiversity loss—on this I disagree with the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), because biodiversity loss is important despite the other convention—and declining soil fertility, especially affect the poor. The World Bank estimates that 20 per cent. of disease in the developing world is due to environmental causes such as unsafe water and air pollution. That is a stunning fact.
	However, the summit is not just about the south. The north must put its house in order by addressing our unsustainable patterns of production and consumption. If we are expecting and, indeed, encouraging the developing world to grow economically so as to eradicate poverty, we need to be seen to be leading the way in decoupling economic growth from environmental degradation. I will be the first to say that, in this country and in many others, we are only at the start of the process.

Simon Thomas: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Michael Meacher: Yes. I have a great deal of respect for the hon. Gentleman.

Simon Thomas: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that; I am not sure whether I want to intervene now.
	I was intrigued by the right hon. Gentleman's amendment to the motion. It specifically says that it expects that there will be a
	"cut in 1990 levels of greenhouse gas emissions by 2012, reaching a cut of 23 per cent.".
	In other words, the cut would overshoot the Kyoto targets. It was interesting that he chose to make that point in the amendment. Is he prepared to stand by that claim and will he come to the Environmental Audit Committee and be prepared to allow it to audit the Government's record on achieving that target?

Michael Meacher: I would be delighted to do that. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has referred to that issue. The hon. Member for Gordon made one point that was not quite right. He recognised that we are well past our legally binding target of 12.5 per cent., although I recognise that I am projecting forward to 2010 and that we must achieve that figure. However, if we achieve a target of 23 per cent. or thereabouts, that will be well beyond what we are required to do under the Kyoto protocols. However, it is not true that the main reason—or even part of the reason—for achieving such a target is the dash for gas and the closure of coal-powered stations. The main explanation is the whole range of measures that we have taken on transport and, particularly, energy efficiency. The dash for gas is not the explanation.

Malcolm Bruce: I did not suggest that the main reason was the dash for gas, only that it was a significant component. I have passed my notes to the Hansard writers, but my recollection is that the model produced by Cambridge Econometrics suggests that the regime under the new electricity trading arrangements—NETA—is forcing down fuel prices and encouraging energy consumption. As a consequence, the model predicts that we will not hit the 23 per cent. target or anything like it unless the Government pursue alternative measures. That is why I am surprised that the Government are so confident that they have put that target in their amendment. I agree with the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas). We need an explanation.

Michael Meacher: It is odd to suggest that NETA is encouraging greater use of fuels such as electricity. Of course, as a result of the new arrangements and the replacement of the anomalous pool price, the cost of electricity has dramatically fallen by 30 or even 40 per cent. over the past few years. Since NETA was introduced just over a year ago, the price has fallen by another 15 to 20 per cent. Those are large cuts that produce huge benefits in terms of fuel poverty. The poorer sections of society benefit greatly if they can obtain fuel more cheaply so long as we insulate their homes to ensure that most of the fuel is not wasted. Improved energy efficiency in the use of fuel is important.

Gareth Thomas: In welcoming the publication today of the Government's strategy for combined heat and power, may I endorse the concern about the impact of NETA on the development of CHP? It looks as though Ofgem has been dragging its feet on a solution to the problems that NETA has caused for renewable and CHP developers. I urge my right hon. Friend to pressure Ofgem to come up with a solution.

Michael Meacher: It was probably a mistake to pick up on the point about NETA. However, the answer to my hon. Friend's perfectly valid point is that NETA benefits the large generators and causes problems for the smaller embedded generators. The Department of Trade and Industry and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have asked Ofgem to carry out its first full year review of the operation of NETA and its impact on small generators. The first year ended on 27 March—about two months ago—and Ofgem will publish a report, I believe, in July. It will be important to consider what further measures can and should be taken to protect the position of CHP.
	I am pleased that my hon. Friend made that point, because the Government have today issued their CHP strategy. It draws attention again to the important reform that the Chancellor introduced in the Budget. We have extended the climate change levy exemption to the whole of CHP, and not just to end users but to licensed supplies. We have also enhanced the capital allowances and said that we will consider further measures if they are necessary. We remain absolutely committed to the target of 10,000 MW by 2010.
	I am sure that hon. Members will want me to conclude my remarks, but I want to make a highly relevant point about anti-globalisation. I do not know whether there will be riots in Johannesburg. I hope not, because they would be extremely undesirable. Anti-globalisation protesters such as those whom we saw at Seattle—I saw them there—and at Genoa rightly identify some of the problems with globalisation. The system does not automatically address all needs—the needs of the poor or of the environment. Some say that a rising tide floats all boats but not if one's boat has a hole in it or if one does not have a boat.
	It must be recognised that globalisation has brought many benefits to many people, but it has also marginalised many people. If it is to become more acceptable, it must become more inclusive and driven by environmental and social concerns not just economic ones. Indeed, it has to be more acceptable economically, too.
	In 1996, direct foreign investment in developing countries was about $250 billion compared with official development assistance of $50 billion. Although that is five times more, it has been concentrated on a few richer developing countries. We need to find ways to channel private sector investment into many of the poorer developing countries. At the same time, however, we need to ensure—this will not be easy—that whatever private investment we encourage works for sustainable development. That means giving real teeth to corporate, social and environmental responsibility, and getting corporate transparency by, for example, implementing the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development guidelines for multinational enterprises.
	What of the specific issues for the Johannesburg summit? Sustainable energy is widely regarded as one of the central sustainable development challenges. It has close links with poverty and the climate change agenda. The hon. Member for Gordon was right to mention the need for a much more rapid development of renewables in the developing countries—as well as our own—so that their path to industrial prosperity is not powered by fossil fuels, which create the problems of pollution and climate destabilisation that we generated.
	Another front runner at the summit is water and sanitation, whose importance I must emphasise. Some 1 billion people lack access to fresh, safe drinking water. That is amazing when we consider the wealth in the world. Some 2.4 billion people—about 40 per cent. of the entire world population—lack proper sanitation. The most shameful figure of all is that every year about 2 million children below the age of five die because of drinking contaminated water or from diarrhoea-related diseases.
	The issue is complex. Poor people need access to water and sanitation, so we should provide water services. However, to pick up on what the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) said, if countries are not properly managing their resources, there is no point plumbing in the entire nation for the taps to run dry. As 260 river basins lie in more than one country, there is more than enough scope for conflict over how best to manage those resources in an integrated way.

Jenny Tonge: I am interested in what the Minister says about not allowing Governments to control their water supplies because they are so inefficient. I recently saw an example of that Ghana. If such services are run by private companies, how can he ensure that the poor will truly benefit, and not have expensive water instead of no water?

Michael Meacher: Once again, there are no ready and easy answers to that. We want proper regulation to ensure that that happens, but the rich world also has a responsibility. Presumably our companies will be responsible for improving water supplies and the water framework in developing countries. They will overwhelmingly do that properly and, I hope, efficiently. However, there are powers to ensure that they carry out what is expected of them.
	I had intended to address the problem of climate change, but time is running out. One could perhaps be forgiven for wondering whether the summit is the answer. Summit overkill—I am told that the latest estimate of those who will attend is about 65,000—is not an excuse to duck out of taking the opportunity to address the big challenges. The summits are held about once every five years. We did not make much progress at the New York summit in 1997, but this time around people are much more focused on the real issues. If the world summit can produce an ambitious but achievable programme of practical action by a partnership of Government, business and non-governmental organisations, and if its implementation is regularly monitored over the next five years in all the areas of development that I mentioned, we might just secure not only a substantive advance in sustainable development, but a major step change towards more co-operative and socially conscious world Governments, which we all want. That is certainly a prize worth striving for.

Caroline Spelman: The United Nations described Rio as a defining moment. It was, but we are 10 years on and the Johannesburg summit on sustainable development is in no small part an effort to put the rhetoric of Rio into practice. As a spokesman on international development, I am conscious of the charge of hypocrisy that the developing world levels against countries such as ours that have not made as much progress as they should have since Rio, but which still dictate to others less fortunate than ourselves what measures they should take to protect the plan.
	I welcome the coupling of the environment with international development. We all know that in our constituencies the burning issues tend to be those close to home, such as infringements of the green belt or campaigns about housing schemes and landfill sites. At a global level, we are beginning to take on board the fact that how we live in our 24/7 throw-away society, and the amount of carbon emissions that results from it, causes global warming with—although this is still controversial—unpredictable climatic results.
	Nearer to home, a WWF briefing document contains a statistic that is worth citing. It states that we could fill the Albert hall every hour with the refuse produced in this country. The Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs published a report in March last year on sustainable waste management. It found that the United Kingdom lags behind other developed countries in recycling, showing both apathy and a profound lack of imagination. In February this year, the World Economic Forum highlighted the fact that Britain has one of the poorest recycling records in the developed world. If the UK were to achieve a similar rate of re-use of municipal solid waste as Finland is aiming to achieve by 2005, carbon dioxide could be reduced by 14.8 million tonnes, which is the equivalent of taking 5.4 million cars off the road.
	We want to encourage business enterprise, both here and in the developing world, but we also want business to embrace sustainable development. The challenge is to find and support sustainable industrial practices and to persuade industry to take up green methods. That is already happening: huge companies such as Shell and BP, traditionally regarded as the villains of the piece when it comes to the environment, are doing that across the world. Although the bulk of their business still depends on the exploitation of non-renewable resources, they are increasingly investing in renewable energy—wind energy, for example, and in the hydrogen storage units that make use of the emerging science of fuel cell technology, which some say could be used to power our vehicles in the future.
	Such large companies are aware of their public image. They are sensitive to public opinion, a lesson of which we politicians constantly need to remind ourselves. In the past five years, BP has cut the level of its CO 2 emissions by 14 million tonnes. It has achieved that through efficiency and technology. I mention those examples to show that change is possible and that sustainability is good for business, too. Supermarkets are increasingly stocking organic food, and fair trade products are becoming big business. Outlets such as The Body Shop have shown how business and environmentally friendly ethics can be mutually beneficial.
	I am aware that the burden of climate change levies on small businesses can seem like the final straw in an area already groaning under the weight of red tape and legislation. For a small manufacturing business near me in the west midlands that is struggling just to keep going, a bill for £38,000 for the climate change levy was the final straw. There should be more finesse in the way we try to fulfil our Kyoto protocol commitment to reduce our carbon emissions. There are examples of how other countries are doing that differently.
	I have spoken already of the hypocrisy inherent in richer countries lecturing poorer ones on the benefits of environmental sustainability. In fact, we can learn a great deal from the developing world about the art of sustainable living, simply because it is the way people who live in the poorest countries of the world have to live. I was struck by that fact on a recent visit to India with Oxfam. The south of India is of course vegetarian, and while we are all busy filling the Albert hall with rubbish, figuratively speaking, the people there are eating food off banana leaves with their fingers, and then feeding the leaves to their cattle. That is a nice little metaphor for sustainable living. There is also an inescapable irony in the fact that with development comes the potential for unsustainable lifestyles.
	Sustainable development is a different matter. It was defined at Rio as
	"development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs."
	No one could disagree with that ideal, but it is more easily realised in some areas of the world than in others.
	At a recent debate at the Oxford Union on the motion that
	"foreign aid has failed the developing world",
	one speaker made a thought-provoking observation. He begged to differ in his definition of the developing world, which he maintained was in fact a better description of our world, as the so-called developing world is not, in reality, developing.
	Christian Aid's campaign "Listen to Africa", which was launched yesterday, is saying that too. The only two African countries that have sustainable debt, as defined by the World Bank, are Mozambique and Tanzania, which both export gold, a finite resource. Because of the collapse of the prices of almost everything every commodity except gold since 11 September, and because many African countries are dependent on a single cash crop such as tobacco or cocoa, many of those countries are drifting further and further away from sustainable development and into intractable debt.
	I am not saying that developing countries cannot make a difference. I can think of an arresting example in India. In Delhi, motor vehicles now run on liquid petroleum gas, which although not renewable is at least fume free. So the image of Delhi choked with rickshaws and cloaked in diesel fumes is now a thing of the past.
	Where does that leave us? In the developed world the moral argument has been won, but the battle to make a difference has only just begun, and we can do better. I genuinely believe that businesses will increasingly make environmentally friendly decisions on how they run their companies. Any Government should encourage those practices with carrots, rather than sticks.
	We all have a part to play in this. I challenge hon. Members to go home and do an environmental audit of the way we live. I am sure I am not the only one who has had to empty the contents of a black plastic rubbish sack in a frantic search for a set of lost car keys. What do those contents tell us? It is a catalogue of convenience where green principles are sacrificed on the altar of packaging and where plastic is king.
	When it comes to the ballot box, it may be the state of our public services that preoccupies voters, but there is an undercurrent of change, a growing awareness of what is precious about this planet and a commitment to its survival. We are the guardians of its future, and as Shakespeare said in "Measure for Measure",
	"dressed in a little brief authority,"
	we have a duty to nurture and maintain it for future generations both on our little patch and in the wider world.

Jon Owen Jones: I am grateful to the Liberal Democrats for picking this important subject for debate. However, like my right hon. Friend the Minister, I think that the rather ungracious and pious attitude that they adopted is all too familiar from their contributions in other debates on similar issues. It would have been better to hear a rather more balanced account of how all parties could do a great deal more on environmental issues. Fortunately, we are all improving in our attitude, but we all have some way to go.
	I want to restrict my comments to sustainable energy and climate change. Global warming is no longer a far away fear; it is a fact. Even if we stopped using fossil fuels tomorrow, we could not stop the global temperature rising. All we could do is slow the eventual rate of increase. The effects of global warming on the United Kingdom are not certain. If the gulf stream were to change direction, as some predict it will, our climate would cool dramatically. We are more likely to see a warmer and wetter climate, but as sea temperatures increase, sea levels will rise and many coastal areas will be swamped. We are sure to experience extremes in weather patterns.
	The countries that will suffer most from those effects are not the developed countries, which have the finance and wherewithal to adapt, but the poorest countries in the world—the very countries that the Johannesburg summit is meant to be addressing. The problems of rising sea levels and climate change will affect the way in which countries can produce food. Population movements, which may be catastrophic and dramatic, will largely affect those third-world countries that are the poorest and the least able to deal with the effects. Although the precise effects are unknown, there is sure to be an impact that will reach right across the globe.
	For that reason, most countries are part of the Kyoto process, trying to work together to reduce greenhouse gases. We in this country boast that we are determined to meet our Kyoto targets and that we are in the forefront of that process, and with some good reason. However, there is a danger of our becoming complacent. The amendment tabled by my party speaks of targets that we hope to reach in the future—10 or 12 years from now. I sincerely hope that the Minister is right, and that in 10 or 12 years he is rewarded for achieving those targets. I hope that he will be in at least his present position, if not a more elevated one, so that he can accept the praise of all parties in the House for that achievement.
	If we look at what is being achieved now, however, we see that the picture is not so glorious. It is not clear to me that we have made much progress at all in the last few years. At the moment, 70 per cent. of our power is produced from fossil fuels; 27 per cent. is nuclear; and just 3 per cent. comes from renewable sources such as wind, wave, solar and hydro-electric. Of that 3 per cent., the vast majority is from hydro-electric production, which was developed, and to which we committed ourselves, several decades ago. We therefore have no right to demand great praise for that development. New renewable energy probably accounts for less than 1 per cent. of the total—not a glorious achievement.
	Are we likely to make rapid progress towards the targets? The simple answer is, not unless we change our ways quite dramatically. I was annoyed by the Liberals' pious talk about the need for the Government to make progress, and by the response the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) gave when he was chided for the fact that Liberals in the Welsh Assembly had opposed wind farm energy production. I notice that not a single Welsh Liberal MP attended even the start of this debate. Furthermore, the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams), a Liberal, is vehement in his opposition to the siting of any wind farms in his constituency. Given that his constituency comprises a large proportion of the total land area of Wales, that is a bit of a problem.
	I am not personalising the issue by confining my objections to the Liberals—well, I am a little bit. To be fair, we all need to examine the performance of our party, our local councils and so on. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy said, everyone is in favour of developing renewable energy in principle, but the difficulties arise when it comes to developing it in practice.

Simon Thomas: Although I support the motion, the hon. Gentleman has tempted me to enter the debate. He will know that the proposed site of the largest wind farm in the UK is in my constituency at Cefn Croes, but he might not know that the opposition to that project has come from, yes, local Liberal Democrats. Furthermore, the previous incumbent of the constituency that I now represent is one of the foremost opponents of that wind farm—so much so that he has refused to allow it even to pass electricity wires over his land.

Jon Owen Jones: I did not know that, but I am sure that the House is grateful for the information, which shows the difference between what the Liberals say and what they do. I do not want to be drawn into attacking only the Liberals, but as it was they who chose the subject of the debate and as their spokesman was so pious in attacking the Government, we should be informed about their actions at the local level. There is a slogan "Think globally, act locally"; well, the Liberals speak globally, then act locally in an entirely different fashion.
	If we are to meet the ambitious targets that the Government have set, and I hope we do, we will have to act quickly, especially on planning issues. We must find a quicker, more efficient and reasonable way to deal with planning proposals; otherwise we will never be able to meet the targets. If we meet them without building any new nuclear power stations in the meantime, nuclear power will decline over the next 20 years. If we meet our ambitious targets, in 2020 we shall be producing about 20 per cent. of our power from renewable sources, but the 27 per cent. of our power that we currently derive from nuclear power will have declined to about 7 per cent. In other words, we will have lost the 20 per cent. accounted for by carbon-free nuclear generation and gained it back in carbon-free renewables generation. We will still be in exactly the same place as we are now—no progress made at all.
	That is a difficult problem that can be resolved in only a few ways. The first is to forget about making any real progress towards the Kyoto targets. The second is to admit that those targets can be achieved only by building nuclear power stations as well. The third is to take the current ambitious renewables targets, double them, and take serious action to meet those new and much more ambitious targets. Those are the only options available. I would never accept reneging on our Kyoto targets, and I would prefer us to have the option of developing renewables at a far more ambitious rate than we are currently achieving so that we do not need to use nuclear power, but if that becomes impossible, nuclear power is a better option than polluting the world with global warming gases. We should admit that and deal with the difficult issues that arise from it.
	I am glad to see that David King, the Government chief scientist, has set his mind to those difficult issues. I would like the Liberals to tell us their intentions in respect of each of those options, instead of saying all the politically popular things—

Malcolm Bruce: indicated dissent

Jon Owen Jones: It is true: the Liberals always say politically popular things and duck the difficult decisions.

David Chaytor: Does my hon. Friend accept that the chief scientist's recent statement referred specifically to the nuclear option as a possible interim solution, pending the full development of a renewables industry in the United Kingdom?

Jon Owen Jones: I am glad that my hon. Friend has made that point. That is indeed precisely what David King said, and I think that it may well be the best practical solution. The Government chief scientist also said that he hoped nuclear fusion would be developed. That is a long-held ambition—ever since I was at school, people have hoped that nuclear fusion would prove to be the answer to our power needs.
	We have to examine how different parts of the United Kingdom contribute to the overall national target. Some work has been carried out by the Department of Trade and Industry, but when we look at the various targets set by the regions of the United Kingdom and at how they intend to achieve them, it is hard to see that they are all working towards the same economic, social and environmental strategy, because there are huge variations in the targets that the different regions propose to reach and in the ways they propose to reach them. Some intend to use wind power, others wave power, tidal power or biomass. The Government must provide greater co-ordination and direction on how to reach the targets if we are to have any realistic hope of success.

Tony Baldry: It is imperative that the UN conference on sustainable development should not merely become a talking shop. There is a risk that it might do so in focusing on the wrong policy at the wrong time. There is no clearer example of that than "Kyoto"—I put it in inverted commas because I use it as a piece of shorthand. If Kyoto is taken to Johannesburg, one might as well forget about real progress being made at the summit. Kyoto would divide the conference and it would mean disaster and a missed opportunity.
	Developing countries are not yet even bound by the environmental targets set at Kyoto, so I was slightly surprised that, when the International Development Committee recently took evidence from officials from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, one of the witnesses commented that the Johannesburg summit would not primarily be concerned with poverty reduction in developing countries. There is perhaps some confusion in the machinery of Government in Whitehall, because that comment was all the more surprising when one considers that the Department of International Development defines sustainable development as follows:
	"livelihood is sustainable when it can cope with and recover from stresses and shocks and maintains or enhances its capabilities and assets both now and in the future, while not undermining the natural resource base."
	It is worth putting Johannesburg in the context of the process of arriving at a consensus on poverty eradication through a number of UN summits. The first part of the process were the millennium development goals, which sought agreement on poverty reduction, health and education, and progress on those at Johannesburg is as vital as the environment itself. The Cabinet Committee co-ordinating work on Johannesburg said in evidence submitted to the International Development Committee, which I chair, that the first priority is poverty reduction. That is essential.
	The Environmental Audit Committee—whose Chairman I hope will catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker—made an excellent report to the House:
	"We note that poverty eradication is emerging as a uniting theme for the World Summit on Sustainable Development. We acknowledge that this issue is a prime candidate for a Summit agenda which is seeking to explore global problems in the context of their economic, social and environmental impacts".
	Poverty eradication must be at the forefront and the substance of what Johannesburg is all about.

Simon Thomas: The hon. Gentleman referred to the Environmental Audit Committee's report, with which, as a member of that Committee, I agree. Does he accept that also on the agenda in Johannesburg is sustainable energy, and the trick is to make sustainable energy work in favour of the poorest countries and in favour of their development? I agree with him about the real politics about Kyoto; we cannot take energy issues out of what is happening in Johannesburg.

Tony Baldry: That was why I put Kyoto in inverted commas. If Kyoto is on the agenda at Johannesburg there will simply be a bust-up, and that is why we need to approach the matter from the point of view of poverty eradication; and sustainable energy, sustainable water and sustainable livelihoods are all part of that.
	From the millennium development goals we went to Doha and the Doha declaration, and from there we went to Monterrey. Monterrey was important. I am conscious that others want to speak so I shall keep my comments short. I am particularly conscious that the Chairman of the Environmental Audit Committee wishes to speak. Monterrey has focused national Governments on international development, but they now need to focus their minds on more money for international development.
	The World Bank estimates that something up to $60 billion will be needed to meet the 2015 targets. Non-governmental organisations have estimated that figure at $100 billion. At Monterrey, the US and the EU, the developed world, pledged an investment of $12 billion by 2006, well short of what the Government acknowledge in the Budget Red Book is needed. It is worth noting that current GDP spending on overseas aid reflects only one fifth of that provided to Europe under the Marshall plan.
	It is essential that countries do not simply produce a wish list of action points at Johannesburg. They must ensure that they will the means to achieve those action points. There is a clear correlation of objectives between Monterrey and Johannesburg, which is succinctly expressed in the Environmental Audit Committee's report on Johannesburg, to whose comments about poverty eradication I referred. It went on:
	"We therefore hope that the Government will endeavour to ensure that any additional resources agreed at Monterrey are linked explicitly to key action programmes to be discussed at the World Summit on Sustainable Development rather than relegating the Summit to a rehearsal of old stalemates on development policy."
	I certainly support that view.
	After Johannesburg, three important UN conferences will have taken place this year. They form part of a process, but there is a danger that the international community will merely keep on coming up with new initiatives for international development. Instead of doing that, it should deliver on the pledges made at Doha, Monterrey and—it is to be hoped—Johannesburg. We should have a process that is monitored. I hope that either in an annual debate on international development or on some other occasion, we in the House can monitor the progress that our Government have made on meeting the commitments that we as a nation entered into at Doha, Monterrey and Johannesburg.
	We must concentrate on that process, rather than on running around for ever trying to dream up new initiatives. We need continually to ensure—this a point that we must all bang on about—that we will the means. The Environmental Audit Committee said:
	"we welcome the Government's commitment to achieving the 0.7 per cent ODA target and, in line with the International Development Committee, recommend that a clear timetable be set".
	I do not understand why it is not possible for the Government to find a ministerial form of words about when the 0.7 per cent. target can be met.
	I understand the Chancellor's reluctance not to be hijacked into making what he might see as too early a commitment. He said yesterday in the International Development Committee that when the comprehensive spending review was published, he would give a commitment for the life of that review on the extent to which he could raise international development spending. Why not find a form of words that gives some meaningful commitment to the 0.7 per cent. target, rather than a statement that we are pledged to meet it some time? We have been pledged to meeting it some time for some very considerable time.
	The Chancellor also acknowledges that the international community is short of what is needed to meet the pledges made at Monterrey. We have heard a lot about the international development trust fund, although we discovered yesterday that it is not a fund but a facility. On listening to the Chancellor's evidence, it struck me that the fund resembles a reinvention of part of the World Bank. I am not entirely sure why we need to reinvent the World Bank, because there is a shortfall in the funds that are necessary for international development. The point is simple: Johannesburg is part of a process of UN conferences and we need to ensure that we deliver on the commitments, but we will not be able to do so unless the international community collectively pledges and provides the funds that are necessary to take those commitments forward.
	Time is short, but I should like briefly to speak about the need for realism at Johannesburg. I hope that we will not see a split or spat between what one might describe as environmental NGOs and developing countries that are concerned about their development. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) made an interesting point that we all need to address. We in the west and north—the developed world—have had centuries of investment that continues to bring us rewards and riches. This week, Christian Aid brought to the House a number of witnesses from Africa who told us about the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Malawi and Ghana. People in such countries are living in desperate poverty and for them, the debate is not about wind power, fusion or nuclear energy; very often, is it simply about how to find firewood and the means for getting through the next day. That is what constitutes sustainable development for them. We must not patronise them by suggesting that the only way of ensuring sustainable development is by somehow suppressing development in the developing countries. They, too, are entitled to sustainable development and should be encouraged to that end. I hope that we can find a language and a vocabulary at Johannesburg that ensures a truly sustainable world while allowing poor countries to break off and emerge from the grinding yoke of poverty that has borne down on them for far too long.

Alan Simpson: The journey from Rio to Johannesburg is the journey from policies to programmes. It is important for hon. Members to recognise that that is what people expect the United Kingdom delegation to contribute to and to deliver as an outcome of the Johannesburg discussions. To put it on a global scale, it is an agenda of targets and time scale. I shall not labour that point, because the Minister is aware of the importance of targets and time scale as regards a matter to do with the home front—more specifically, the warm homes front, where the issues of targets and time scale are an exact local reflection of what must be addressed globally in Johannesburg.
	We should pay tribute to the achievements of this Labour Government, while not seeking to duck the challenges on the path ahead of us. For me, the starting point remains the Deputy Prime Minister's important achievement in delivering the Kyoto agreement. It was he who, at the very last minute, managed to pluck an agreement out of the fire that was constructed around the phrase "contraction and convergence". That is based on the belief that we in the industrial and developed world have to find a way of living differently: not living poorer lives, but living less wasteful, polluting and destructive lives. It is in many ways a path to a different sense of richness. The convergence principle is based on allowing the developing world to share in the sense of the possibility of sustainable lifestyles based on dignity and opportunity. There is a rightness about the symmetry of that contract.
	When the Deputy Prime Minister succeeded in bringing back the Kyoto agreement for ratification and laying it before the House, that was the right thing, not only for a Labour Government, but for this country, to do. I have no doubt whatsoever that we will ratify it, nor that we will meet and exceed those targets. That will be an enormous challenge, but we will get there. We should put on the record our thanks to the Deputy Prime Minister for standing on that ground and continuing to do so.
	For billions of people in the developing world, the other side of the agenda is survival. For the 1.2 billion people who live on less than $1 a day, the question of survival in a more sustainable future will be judged on whether they are there tomorrow, the day after that and the week after that. It is not possible to say that in 10, 20 or 30 years' time everything will be different. For many of those people, the difference will be between being alive and being dead.
	I am sure that there will be anti-globalisation protesters in Johannesburg, and I encourage the UK delegation to attempt to understand what they are trying to tell us. They will say that the 49 poorest countries on the planet currently contribute less than 0.5 per cent. of global gross domestic product—a pitiful sum that is made even worse by the recognition that 20 years ago those countries contributed twice as much to global GDP. The protesters will also point out that the nature of globalisation has made the poor poorer. We need to understand the transition—almost a sea change—in international trade in the past 50 years.
	The point where that dramatic change began was 1980. In the previous 30 years, the poorest countries on the planet had made genuine gains in per capita gross national product that improved the quality of their lives. Per capita GDP increased in Latin America by 73 per cent. and in Africa, by 34 per cent. However, in the subsequent two decades, GDP growth in Latin America was almost static—6 per cent. in 20 years. In Africa, GDP has fallen by 23 per cent. So much has been driven by the sacrifices that the poorest parts of the planet have been required to make on the altar of globalisation.
	The ability of the poorest countries to say that they would produce to meet their needs first led to almost all the achievements in genuine per capita growth. They were based on assumptions about import substitution, not production for export, and on the notion that those countries could construct protective barriers. I believe that the tariffs were deemed acceptable because they were perceived as an effective barrier against the spread of communism. They were therefore allowed and encouraged, and that made the countries in question objectively richer.
	Post-1980, in the era of market liberalisation, all the rights of the poorest countries have been stripped away. Consequently, the poor are now poorer. The anti-globalisation protesters will try to require the rest of us to tackle that. They will concentrate on at least four themes, and this evening I want to try to consider climate change, water, food and sustainable lifestyles rather than sustainable profits.
	We must start by making our contribution to tackling climate change. I am pleased that a Labour Government provided the first fuel poverty strategy of any Government anywhere on the planet. We have set a target of eliminating fuel poverty in this country in 15 years. That is an ambitious target, which we will achieve. We will be helped to do that by passing the private Member's Bill that my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) has promoted. The time scale has been slightly delayed, but the measure will be passed by the end of July. It has formed the basis of setting and fulfilling our targets. Let us consider the way in which we can share that.
	I ask the Minister and the delegation that goes to Johannesburg to take with them a microcosm of a strategy that might work in a different, internationalised future for the 21st century: a lovely programme in this country called the BedZED approach. It is about changing housing standards by design. There is a twinning process between Sutton, where the programme was developed in this country, and Johannesburg. The programme results not only in a 90 per cent. reduction in domestic heating costs, but in the use of sustainable materials in the construction of housing, and building a sustainable infrastructure to support it. It is a wonderful cameo of what we have to share and the way in which approaches can be gifted internationally. I hope that Ministers will derive some credit for that twinning transaction, which we will have to replicate on a bigger scale throughout the century.
	We must also tackle renewable energy, which hon. Members are right to discuss. The United Kingdom has set itself a target of 10 per cent. by 2010. It is important to achieve that and go further. Of course it is right to point out that, in the same time scale, Germany will try to develop 100,000 properties that are heated by renewable energy. At the same time, Japan has set itself a target of 1 million homes powered by renewable energy.
	We must look at those targets and reconsider, because in the poorest parts of the planet, as well as in the more remote parts of our own lands, this approach will allow us to deliver real savings in terms of a reduction of greenhouse gasses. We must do that if we are to have anything credible to say to the 2 billion people on the planet who have no access to electricity of any sort. They are not in anyone's energy loop. We must reach out and connect them to the more renewable and mobile sources of energy supply.
	The Minister pointed out that 2 million people die each year because they do not have access to uncontaminated water. One billion people do not have access to safe water. The Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations has pointed out that there will have to be an 80 per cent. increase in crop production by 2030, but on current calculations, we shall have access to only a 12 per cent. increase in water supply.
	That will present an enormous challenge, and we shall not be able to meet it if we saddle ourselves with the approach adopted by the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to the debt cancellation programmes that we are attempting to pioneer. We must consider what goes alongside debt cancellation. This is not a question of whether we cancel debt in areas of conflict. Rather, we must examine the conditionality agreements that are foisted on the countries that accept debt cancellation.
	Bolivia, for example, was forced to give away its water supply free of charge to a London-based water company. The result was that the company increased its water charges to the poor by 35 per cent. There were riots in the town of Cochabamba, and the armed forces were brought in to suppress a domestic population that was rioting because it could not get access to water that was being priced out of its reach. Similarly, debt cancellation conditions in Tanzania required the Government there to introduce charges for health and education. In Ecuador, the privatisation of the energy industry resulted in an 80 per cent. increase in gas charges.
	That is the basis on which the World Development Movement recently issued a report called "States of Unrest II", which documented 77 issues of major conflict around the globe that countries affected by debt relief were experiencing as a result of a fire sale of their primary assets. The poor have a right to be angry with us if we are extracting that kind of price for debt cancellation. That is not debt relief; it is a different kind of indebtedness, and it gives people a different sense of desolation about what the future holds.
	We have to go back to the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation's objective—that the priorities and the connectedness between food and water for the next century must involve our getting "more crop per drop". That is its argument on how we should approach the needs of the developing world, and it must bring with it a recognition that we should not ask the developing world to abandon sustainable agriculture systems based on meeting their own needs in favour of shifting to more water-intensive programmes for intensive agriculture, to produce for export.
	A dependency on exporting their primary crops was precisely what got many of the developing countries into real debt. They produced those crops so well that it resulted in a collapse in commodity price and, unable to use hard currency earnings to buy their way out of debt, the only thing that remained unaffected was the scale of the dollar debts that they were expected to pay off in the face of those collapsed commodity prices.
	The industrial world has to recognise that we must offer developing countries a different choice. We cannot judge them on the basis of their inability to feed us. They must have the opportunity to feed themselves before they think about doing that. Part of that agenda must include developing countries' right—which we support—to say no to the imposition of GM crop technologies, which will only accelerate the water demands of the intensive agriculture systems that they seek to underpin. We must give those nations the right we would assert for our own citizens: the right to say no to development that would endanger prospects of survival.
	Let me say something about sustainable lifestyles as opposed to sustainable profits. In Johannesburg there will be huge corporate pressures for sustainability to be redefined around the notion of profitability. That will provide no answers for the developing world, or for us.
	This is the best single example I can give. When Maneka Gandhi was India's Environment Minister, she came to this country at about the time when we were beginning to talk about chlorofluorocarbon and hydrofluorocarbon pollutants in our fridges. I know that this is another sensitive subject for the Minister, and I do not want to rub salt in the wound, but this is what the Environment Minister told us. She said, "We realise you have a problem. I suspect that if the United Kingdom set itself a serious target, it could remove all its polluting fridges within a decade. That would probably require you to replace 20 million fridges. It would create lots of work, and you would feel incredibly virtuous. At the end of the decade, you would look for international praise. At the end of the same decade, however, India alone will contain 200 million households that have legitimately sought the right to own a fridge. According to the development model of the last century, you will have palmed off all your polluting fridges on us and called it aid. What we really need is the opportunity to be part of a sustainable global agenda, but that must be a gift relationship that gives us access to technologies that will allow us to produce better lifestyles without destroying the prospects for others."
	That, I hope, is the keystone of any test of any agreement that this country will stand up for and bring back from Johannesburg.

John Redwood: I have declared my interests in the Register of Members' Interests.
	There is a central tension, referred to in the report accompanying the debate, between development and the need to clean up the planet. I do not think that we heard any serious attempt to reconcile the two—except in the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), who said that, if forced to choose, he would choose development and greater prosperity for the world's poorer nations rather than meeting ever more demanding targets for control of pollution.
	How, I asked the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce), would the Liberal Democrats resolve that obvious tension? The hon. Gentleman replied that he would want to see a global target for ensuring that pollution fell year on year world wide, whatever the rate of growth and whatever the rate of increase in pollution from the world's poorest countries. That is a noble aim, but a dangerous aim for anyone in government, or serious about governing, to recommend.
	We cannot know how successful development policies will be, and we cannot know how many millions of Chinese or Indians will soon have fridges and cars, and far greater energy demands. It would be quite wrong of us in the rich west to tell those people that they have no right to enjoy the energy-intensive technologies that have powered our prosperity in recent decades, and it would be very difficult for us to say that we will definitely tax and regulate ourselves stringently enough—in the way that Liberal Democrats usually recommend—to offset all the potentially huge growth in energy use in the developing world.
	I am sure that those who have spoken today—including the Minister—who are angry about poverty in the third world, about the deaths of children and about the hundreds of millions who have no access to fresh water of a decent standard or to energy of any kind that we would recognise are right to be angry. I am sure that our priority should be to extend the hand of friendship, trade, prosperity and technology to the hundreds of millions in the dozens of countries all over the world who have no access to the most rudimentary of the home and creature comforts that we all take for granted. That surely must be the priority of this mighty summit as, once again, 65,000 people assemble to try to put the world to rights.
	If we ask ourselves what the UK Government can do to tackle the monumental poverty that disfigures our world, we realise that the issues are too numerous to mention in this short debate, but let me highlight just a few. The first is surely that where we have influence and the ability to use it for the good, we must try to stem the conflicts and move developing countries towards regimes that put economic prosperity and liberty ahead of war and of declaring war on their own people for their own political ends. There is no credit to be gained by advancing money in the form of grant or loan to regimes that use it to buy new Mercedes for the generals running the country and new military hardware to repress their poor people if they dare to complain about the rotten system under which they live.
	I ask the Minister to remind the House of the Government's policy, which I support, of not offering grant or debt retirement to regimes that will clearly abuse our money and our trust. It was not easy for the Secretary of State to defend that policy and I admire the fact that she has done so, but we need to go beyond that and move from the negative to the positive.
	We need to use our influence and that of the other rich countries who are our allies and friends both in the Americas and in the European Union to try to move more countries into a position where they can establish a civil society. Without a civil society and the rule of law, there is absolutely no chance of those countries having the opportunity to become better off and have decent food and water. If we cannot support Governments and regimes and forces of legitimate opposition that wish to establish a decent civil society, we will have no chance of doing all the other wonderful things that we would like to do to help their development, such as encouraging private sector investment and money flows, which are usually the best way of securing prosperity.
	We should understand that not only does five times as much money flow from the private sector to the developing world as from Governments, but that the money that flows from the private sector to the private sector in developing countries is much more useful in lifting the living standards and aspirations of people than is much of the Government-to-Government money. Many good studies show how much Government-to- Government money is wasted or diverted into less legitimate causes by the Governments who receive it. Even where we believe that to some extent a regime is worth backing, corruption or misappropriation still occurs, making it difficult for the subjects of that country to benefit.
	Finally, we should attempt to understand the mighty log in our eye when we look at the moral issue of the world's poor. Surely the biggest log in our eye, collectively, in the European Union and in the UK is the common agricultural policy. Many developing countries are most likely to produce crops for export before they have industrial products for export. I understand the point made by the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson), but one of the best opportunities that these countries have is to sell agricultural exports for hard currency. One reason why the global markets are so depressed is that the EU runs a protection racket in many sectors, so that a big block of the world's most mighty and rich countries is not generating sufficient demand on the world markets to encourage developing economies.
	I welcome all the charities and interest groups from outside the House who have been lobbying and will continue to lobby for fair trade. It is a very good idea, but it must also be reflected in Government policy on the EU. We have heard for many years from Governments of both persuasions about reforming the CAP. We have heard from this Government that they have far more influence in Brussels than the outgoing Conservative Government had. Would it not be good if we could be told tonight that at last this influence will work and there will be some reform of the CAP that will be good for consumers and taxpayers here in Britain? It would be very good for the world's poorest countries if some of that protection racket were at last torn down and their farmers given the chance of a decent life.
	I believe that we in the rich United Kingdom should make ever bigger contributions to reducing the pollution that we inject into the planet's atmosphere. We have made good strides, and we need to make more. The two most dramatic developments in recent years came about in rather surprising ways. Following the privatisation of the electricity industry, it suddenly became possible to build the combined cycle gas stations that the nationalised monopoly always refused to build. We leapt from about 38 per cent. fuel efficiency to 55 or 60 per cent., which made a huge difference to the amount of pollution that we churn out.
	As the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) pointed out in a thoughtful contribution, this Government now face an even bigger challenge. The previous, Conservative Government were able to implement a super-green privatisation policy, which made far and away the biggest contribution to our success so far in reducing pollution. We now need from this Government a policy on what to do when the nuclear stations need to be replaced. If they are not going to replace nuclear with nuclear—it is very unlikely that they can replace it with non-fossil fuel of any other kind, given the pathetic efforts so far—what else do they intend to do to get us back to where we should be? We will take a mighty step backwards if nuclear stations are replaced by gas, or some other fossil fuel technology.
	Paradoxically, the second area in which we have made enormous strides is the pariah—according to the Liberal Democrat lexicon on environmental matters—of the motor car. Huge improvements have been made in the performance of the typical family saloon in the past decade. Current family saloons pollute to only about 4 per cent. of the extent of comparable vehicles built some 12 or 15 years ago. That has been achieved through a combination of incentive, technology and regulation. Such massive improvement shows that technology in free markets can make a big contribution to cleaning up the planet. We now need to make a similar attack on pollution from old and dirty diesel railway locomotives, and from old and dirty diesel buses. We have not renewed the bus and train fleet as quickly as the car fleet, so proportionately public transport vehicles—particularly those that are not used by enough passengers—pollute more than do the modern versions of motor cars.
	I hope that the Government want the car industry to progress from 30 or 40 mpg vehicles to 80 or 90 mpg vehicles. The technology exists, and it can be done. I hope, too, that they want to make yet further progress in cleaning up exhausts through a mixture of incentive and regulation. That brings me to a very important principle. We make so much more progress if we work with the grain of human nature by offering incentive, rather than working against it by trying to stop people enjoying our society's marvellous inventions through a mixture of high taxation and regulation. The two successes in green policy—first, under a Conservative Government, and now under a Labour Government—involved offering a tax discount for good conduct, rather than clobbering people for alleged bad conduct. The Conservatives began getting rid of lead in petrol by offering an incentive to buy unleaded fuel, and this Government are getting rid of sulphur in petrol by offering a similar discount. That is an excellent scheme; let us go on with it.
	One major way in which we can contribute to greening our country—and thereby modestly contribute to greening the planet—is to use a similar range of tax incentives to tackle the dirt and pollution generated by the typical home heating system. A generation of boilers that are very old—compared with the average age of car engines—and inefficient remains in use. Many homes are not properly thermally insulated. A few small programmes exist to help people on low incomes get better insulation and achieve better fuel efficiency in the home, but we need to attack the problem much more manfully. In terms of pollution, the space heating problem is far bigger than the car problem. We also need to establish a better tax incentive policy to tackle the abuse of waste, to which reference has already been made.
	I am conscious that many other hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall conclude by urging the Government to put development ahead of everything else at the summit. It is the blight of poverty that we should be most appalled at and worried by. The Government should understand that we need to contribute to stronger regimes that can create a civil society, and to back the private sector, which will be the main agent for change and improvement in such countries. We need desperately to deal with our common agricultural policy problem, and with the other remaining barriers to trade within our European trading framework.
	We need to make much better strides at home towards greening our own country. However, that should be done by judicious regulation and tax discount, and not by treating anyone who drives a car or behaves in a way that the Government do not like as a pariah who must be taxed out of existence.
	We can enjoy the benefits of modern technology, and we can make them ever greener. Wealth and technology will win the battle against pollution, not taxation and backward thinking.

Gareth Thomas: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood). He is always thought-provoking and provocative, but I thought that his declaration of support for the previous, Conservative Government's energy policy omitted mention of the huge destruction caused to many mining communities by the extremely vindictive policies pursued by his party in government. That is a classic example of how not to promote sustainable development and the greening of policy in the UK.
	The Government deserve considerable praise for the seriousness of their preparations for the Johannesburg summit. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister was the first international leader to commit himself to attend the summit, and the way in which my right hon. Friends the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretaries of State for International Development and for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have engaged in the preparations for it is hardly consistent with the lack of enthusiasm that the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) tried to depict.
	I shall support the Government's amendment tonight, but whoever drafted it might usefully have included a series of other policy measures that the Government have introduced. They include, for example, the launch of the renewables obligation, the extra £200 million that will go to develop our renewables industry, and the publication only today of the UK's combined heat and power strategy. They are all examples of other measures that the Government have taken to promote sustainability in the UK.
	I want briefly to highlight three specific issues on which more needs to be done. I welcome the good judgment shown once again by Mr. Speaker in selecting for debate in Westminster Hall next week the subject of renewable energy. The debate will be opened by the hon. Member for Harrow, West, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones)—who has rightly highlighted the need for us to stimulate the take-up of sustainable energy in a variety of ways—will participate too.
	Combined heat and power is a neglected source of energy. The Government have gone some way towards addressing the matter with the publication today of their CHP strategy. However, there are other things that need to be done when it comes to implementing the strategy.
	The decision of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in the Budget to exempt CHP fully from the climate change levy was welcome, but it must be implemented swiftly and effectively if the mood and climate in the CHP industry are to be turned around. I understand that there could be a delay before the measure comes into force, as EU approval for such state aid is required. However, I hope that the Government will act speedily to ensure that that approval is secured.
	As I mentioned in my intervention on my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment, who opened the debate for the Government, there is urgent need for reform of the new electricity trading arrangements. The way in which Ofgem has tried to drag its feet in the matter is unacceptable. Representatives of the CHPA and Ofgem met only last week, but Ofgem's chief executive, Mr. McCarthy, seemed entirely unable to spell out how Ofgem intended to resolve the problem.

Simon Thomas: Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that in its evidence to the Environmental Audit Committee, Ofgem said that it had not yet been issued with the statutory environmental guidelines that the Department of Trade and Industry is supposed to issue? Is he concerned that Ofgem's attitude towards NETA and renewable energy has been governed by a narrow interpretation of the legislation and not by the wider context that those statutory guidelines would have helped to create? Will he join me in urging the Government to introduce those guidelines, as there is an obvious failing in Ofgem?

Gareth Thomas: As I indicated, I have grave concerns about Ofgem's behaviour in this context. I do not accept its argument that it is the Government's fault. The Government have made their views on what they want Ofgem to do very clear. Frankly, Ofgem needs to get on with it quickly.
	I hope that the Government will take advantage of the powers in the Utilities Act 2000 to create a CHP obligation in the same way as the obligation has been created for renewables. I also hope that there will be a correction of what appears to be a genuine mistake that has imposed the full costs of the renewables obligation on, ironically, CHP schemes, causing unintended significant additional costs for many CHP developers.
	My second point concerns steps that could be taken to promote business consideration of environmental issues such as climate change and waste minimisation. My right hon. Friend the Minister quite rightly touched on the importance of promoting corporate social responsibility. Some large businesses have, through the production of environmental reports, already begun to address sustainable development at boardroom level. Over the past 10 years, a whole industry has virtually been created around corporate social and environmental reporting. There are very good examples of businesses reporting on environmental and other issues. However, much more could be done in the business world. The Prime Minister rightly issued a challenge to the top 300 FTSE companies to produce a substantive environmental report. The truth is that some two thirds have not yet responded properly to that challenge.
	The time has come for us to consider whether we need to require companies of a certain size to publish meaningful information on their environmental performance every year so that consumers, shareholders and investors can judge how they have performed in that area. It is superficially attractive to argue that voluntary initiatives should be left to work and that simply urging and chiding the business world is enough, but there have been examples of the voluntary approach not working. The energy rating scheme, for example, was developed throughout the 1980s and 1990s. The then Government declined for several years to set any standards but eventually had to intervene to clarify the confusion that was created. That is an example of the merit of requiring a certain basic level of environmental information to be published by all major companies.
	When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs was at the Department of Trade and Industry, she quite rightly established the company law review, which published its final report in July last year. A key recommendation of the report was to have a new requirement on most large public companies to produce an operating and financial review as part of the company's annual report. It was suggested that sets of both mandatory and voluntary information should be published in that review. Sadly, it was recommended that the voluntary category should include all policies and performance on environmental issues. I hope that Ministers will not accept that suggestion, but instead require big business to publish certain basic environmental indicators.
	Last year, DEFRA published a series of environmental indicators that businesses could use. They set out how businesses could work up information and clear guidance was offered on three key points: greenhouse gas emissions; waste disposal; and water usage. It would be useful if businesses could publish information on those points and I hope Ministers will consider that requirement.
	The hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) referred to waste. Although I welcome the fact that the performance and innovation unit is considering that issue, there is scope for a debate in this place to reflect the considerable concern in many of our communities about the scourge of litter and the increasingly rapid escalation of household waste.
	I hope that Ministers will respond to those points and that we can make further progress on taking up the sustainability challenge in the UK.

Sue Doughty: In February, Margot Wallstrom, the EU Environment Commissioner, said:
	"We cannot keep coming back from world gatherings with impressive commitments and fine words that we then leave in a corner of our offices to gather dust."
	Since Kyoto, there has been some danger that, as she feared:
	"Our implementation deficit will quickly turn into a credibility gap".
	It is reasonable to expect developed countries to take action before they commit themselves and to pursue economic growth in a way that does not break environmental limits.
	The agenda for the world summit has moved on; it is no longer purely environmental but offers the opportunity to provide a framework for the integration of trade, development, environment and social questions. That is understandable given the rapid escalation of issues relating to trade, justice and debt that so affect the poorest countries of the world.
	The Government have tended to focus their attention on support for those countries in the key aspects of water, energy, health, food security and governance. How far have we moved towards meeting our responsibilities, however? What has happened since Rio? How can we make sure that we use the impetus of Johannesburg to energise our initiatives to meet our responsibilities? We must ensure that we do not miss the opportunities offered by Johannesburg.
	The UK Government must use the momentum of the Johannesburg process to strengthen their commitment to the centrality of sustainable development at all levels in the UK. We must firmly entrench sustainable strategies and their regular monitoring in national, regional and local government. Too often, there is a gap between central Government, who initiate measures—on waste management, for example—and local government which wants to implement them but does not have the means to do so.
	The debate has been wide ranging, although I know that hon. Members wanted to cover many more points. We have many more questions about the Government's plans and we could have done with more time. When we consider what the Government are doing, we find that there are many principles but not much practice. The Government's website defines sustainable development. It gives the history, objectives and guiding and precautionary principles, but instruments and mechanisms, strategies and legislation are yet to come. We need them now.
	We need targets and timetables for many aspects of sustainable development. As the Secretary of State for International Development said, we do not merely need the odd renewable energy project. We need to ensure that, as the poorest nations develop their economies, they do not make the same mistakes as we did with fossil fuels.
	We need to strengthen our own renewable energy businesses so that we can offer development help to those who need it. We have been missing a trick; Germany has moved much faster than us and is offering such help—we should be doing the same.
	We can do much more to promote green electricity, perhaps with publicity. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) thinks that we are not doing enough. Perhaps he does not read our strategies for green energy by 2050—we have the long term in view. I wish that I could persuade London Electricity to do what I say and give me my green tariff. I have pleaded with London Electricity for that tariff. We want it; we try to deliver.
	Energy is fundamental to economic and social development. It is fundamental to human economic activity and access to services. We need those services not just for ourselves; we must demand them for others as well. Some 2 billion people lack access to modern energy services. If they are to achieve decent standards of living by using traditional fossil fuels, the impact on the planet will be totally devastating.
	What are we doing at home? We still have concerns at home. People are saying that the Home Energy Conservation Bill is wonderful. Yes, we know that it is wonderful. Like everyone else, we have been asking for the Bill, yet it is like being left waiting at the church. On Second Reading, the Government said that they support the Bill. HECA officers—the people who implement the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995—want to deliver the proposals at local government level. They are waiting for the Bill and they are saying, "What is the point if there are no targets? We might as well not bother."
	We have a letter from the Minister without Portfolio in which he says that the Government have supported that Bill at every stage and will continue to do so, yet we have a problem every time that we try to include targets in the Bill. It was intended to deliver sustainable energy targets to reduce greenhouse gases, but the Government have moved amendments to remove those targets.
	On 14 January, in response to the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed), the Minister for the Environment said:
	"The hon. Gentleman made a just point about whether the Bill was adequately funded. I am glad to assure him that, in our view, it certainly is."—[Official Report, 14 January 2002; Vol. 378, c. 125.]
	However, he also suggested that the Bill could not be funded because the money was not there. So the Bill will come back and we will all troop in again, but I hope that the Government will not persuade the Bill's promoter to talk it out. I hope that it will be enacted. We are debating our role on the world stage, so it will be a matter of shame if we cannot even implement the Home Energy Conservation Bill.
	I realise that hon. Members are waiting to hear the winding-up speeches in this very interesting debate, but many other issues could be covered. Hon. Members have referred to waste management and the problem that waste is being created faster than the economy is developing. Plastic bottles are being recycled and made into drainage tubes, but the company that does that work in the United Kingdom is importing bottles from Belgium because the Government have failed to implement a sustainable waste strategy that works.
	We still have to deal with the challenges about sustainable timber. Hon. Members will remember that the Government had to back-track on all the comings and goings and silliness about the wood that was used in the Cabinet Office.

Malcolm Bruce: As well as in the Department for International Development's offices.

Sue Doughty: Even DFID, of all Departments, cannot guarantee that it is using sustainable timber. There is a hell of a long way to go before we can hold up our heads. We have got tough challenges ahead. We want the Government to lead the country so that we do well. All hon. Members would support that view, but we must not fool ourselves.
	It is a joke to talk about people using cleaner cars in the south-east, when they are sitting in traffic jams, going nowhere and public transport is being dismantled. Listening to people say that we need cleaner buses, when buses have been deregulated and are scarcely economic to run, will not do a lot about fuel emissions, which is an important issue. We wish the Government well; we will measure them on their performance, but we will support all that they do in their work in Johannesburg.

Jenny Tonge: This has been a very good debate, but, sadly, not nearly long enough. Many hon. Members still want to speak, and I hope that, between the Bali preparatory conference and Johannesburg, the Government will have a proper debate on sustainable development on the Floor of the House. There is so much to be said which has not been said this evening.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) talked about genuine partnerships between rich and poor, in which he was echoed by many other Members, and about the fact that we must not take the lion's share of the Earth's resources. He made his point strongly about the lack of consultation by the Secretary of State and the lack of information to the House about what will happen at Johannesburg, which is disgraceful, and he criticised the USA for turning its back on the poor of the world.
	The Minister for the Environment, who said many good things and made a very interesting speech, was nevertheless very much on the defensive about the meeting at Bali. He told us that, amazingly, 65,000 people will be at Johannesburg. I do not know how many aeroplanes that will involve, but I do know that, in terms of CO 2 emissions, one flight to Johannesburg and back is the equivalent of one car driven for a whole year. I hope that Johannesburg is worthwhile because it will contribute hugely to global warming.
	The hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) gave her usual careful and meticulous analysis, and especially emphasised the amount of waste in the north and in developing countries. I have never lost my car keys in a black bag, but I did drop them down a street drain in Birmingham once. The street cleansing department became involved while my children bawled inside the car because they could not get at their mother. Looking back, it was quite fun.
	The hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) rightly said that there are too many conferences and too many pledges. The processes take place all over again, but who monitors our progress? That point was echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty), who said that we must monitor ourselves and look at where all the agreements and treaties are going, rather than just making more of them.
	I am glad that renewable forms of energy were mentioned by many hon. Members—the subject dominated the debate. The Minister for the Environment talked at length about renewable forms of energy, which were also mentioned by the hon. Members for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones), for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas)—he always makes a good contribution, but, unfortunately, was not able to make a speech tonight—and my hon. Friend the Member for Gordon, who mentioned the Greenpeace and Body Shop campaign for more renewable forms of energy in the third world, of which I hope that the House will take note. The issue was also mentioned by the hon. Members for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) and for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas).
	The hon. Member for Nottingham, South mentioned problems with water, too, as did the Minister for the Environment. Getting clean water to the people of this world is crucial, and is as important as education. If we can rank factors in development in order of importance, clean water is certainly very high on the list.
	Trade and the common agricultural policy were dealt with by many hon. Members, but particularly by the Minister for the Environment and the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), who made a useful and thoughtful contribution.
	One of the less publicised international development goals in all our documents and White Papers is the implementation of national strategies for sustainable development in all countries by 2005 to ensure that current trends in the loss of environmental resources are effectively reversed, at global and national levels, by 2015. That is very difficult in poor countries. My gut reaction, which I am sure that other hon. Members who have been to third world countries share, is to want to give those countries as much as possible as quickly as possible.
	As the right hon. Member for Wokingham said, people in third world countries want electricity, fridges, hot water and cars, just as we do. The lifestyle that they lead may sometimes look picturesque to us, but it is not much fun for them. If we point out the problems of sustainability, environmental damage and child labour to them, they will say, "You did all those things in the 19th and 20th centuries. Nobody preached to you about the damage you were doing to the world. We want what you have." If they are to get those things—which they deserve and should get—we must make sacrifices ourselves. We must give way and use less energy. Above all, we must lead by example on issues such as renewable sources of energy.
	How many of us have seen examples of projects that have been supported by UK Government aid or by Export Credits Guarantee Department and World Bank loans and have not been sustainable? I remember that members of the Select Committee on International Development visited the Jinja dam in Uganda. It was a fine project, but the dam was crumbling because it had not been properly maintained. Only last week, I was studying the water supply system in Accra which, over the past 30 years, has been funded by the World Bank and the UK. The Ghanaian water authority is maintaining the system so badly that 52 per cent. of the water is wasted. No wonder the World Bank and the Department for International Development are talking about looking for private contractors.
	However, as I have said, there are difficulties with privatisation. It is fine but we must remember the poor. There is no point in privatising if the poor cannot afford the commodity provided. That point must be borne constantly in mind. All future projects must be sustainable over the long term. The main aim should be sustainability and relief of poverty and not profit for companies in the north, although I appreciate that that is a factor.
	We have not heard much about the behaviour of transnational companies and the multinationals. I want to touch on that point briefly, because some of them have a turnover that is much larger than that of many countries. Those companies have a huge responsibility on their shoulders for the future of the environment, global warming and the planet. Many guidelines, compacts and codes of conduct deal with their behaviour, but they must be made compulsory. In particular, the guidelines of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development must be enforceable. Could they not be incorporated into the criteria for licence applications considered by the ECGD? There must be some way of ensuring that large companies behave.
	I thought that there was going to be no mention of forestry, but my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford referred to the subject just before I rose to speak. I thank her for that. I and other Members will remember the regions and rivers in Colombia where illegal logging and deforestation is going on apace. It is difficult to travel on the rivers in Colombia because they are silting up. Whole tracts of south America have become filthy marshland because the trees can no longer hold back the soil. Enormous environmental damage is being caused and the trees are not there to absorb the CO 2 that we produce.
	The forests in that region are not sustainable. My hon. Friend the Member for Guildford alluded to the wood used in the Cabinet Office and the Department for International Development. We do not wear furs, even though the animals are already dead, and we should not use wood from unsustainable forests even though the trees have already been cut down. That only encourages others to do likewise.
	This has been a good debate, but I hope that we shall get some sense from the Government of the big idea. What lead will they take in Bali and Johannesburg? Let us not have another talking shop with nothing to show for it in five years' time. Let us have a treaty with firm commitments on water, energy, tourism and forestry. There are so many things to do if we are to save the planet. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us on all the points raised.

Hilary Benn: Like my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment, I congratulate the Liberal Democrats on initiating the debate even if part of the speech of the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) and the words in the motion have been rather churlish in not recognising the role that the Government have played in supporting the world summit for sustainable development. The views expressed did not square with the good report produced by the Environmental Audit Committee. It sets out clearly the facts about the leadership that the Government are providing. For instance, referring to the fact that the Prime Minister was the first major world leader to say that he would attend, the report said:
	"Such high level leadership is crucial to advancing the sustainable development agenda both domestically and abroad."
	It also said:
	"We find UK preparations for the World Summit on Sustainable Development to be comprehensive and well organised . . . we commend the Government for its strategic and inclusive approach."
	That clearly reflects our approach.

Simon Thomas: I agree that the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) might have over-egged the argument about preparations, but the Bali conference, which the Minister for the Environment said might be even more important than Johannesburg, is vital to how we consider the role of the summit. Will the Under-Secretary ensure that the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs gives a statement after the Bali conference, to which we have the opportunity to respond?

Hilary Benn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will carefully consider the suggestion that the House have a further opportunity, before Johannesburg, to consider what we want the summit to achieve.
	The debate has been valuable because it has given the House a chance to focus on the two biggest challenges that we face: reducing world poverty and ensuring that that is done sustainably. Every contribution reflected on those challenges: how can we as human beings live within the earth's environmental means and, at the same time, tackle the problems of poverty, inequality and injustice? It is not a choice between the two. That came across clearly. We have to do both, which is what the world summit is all about. If it is to succeed, it will have to embrace both perspectives.
	We have moved on from the days when it might have appeared that conservation was more interested in the trees than in the people who lived in the forests where those trees grew. We understand the importance of finding ways of earning a living that are consistent with sustaining the environment. As many hon. Members, including the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), said, providing opportunities for trade will make a major contribution to lifting people out of poverty.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) mentioned genetically modified crops. That is a matter for all Governments—our Government, the Governments of developing countries or wherever—to make their own decisions on, weighing up the benefits and risks of their approach.
	We also know that the poor suffer most from environmental problems. Let me give one statistic. Every year 2 million children under five die from acute respiratory infection. Two thirds of those deaths are thought to be related to indoor air pollution, which is caused principally by burning fuel in confined spaces for cooking and heating. That is a form of pollution that many people in the rich and developed world would not know of as a risk, yet it kills all those children every year.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones) rightly referred to the rise in the sea level. If it rises around Bangladesh, the homes of the people who live on the delta will disappear. The people who live on the shifting sands of the shorelands of Bangladesh experience that every year. When the rains fall in the north and the water floods down, they have literally to pick up their homes and move. When I was in Bangladesh recently, I met a woman of about 45 who told me that she had moved 30 to 35 times in her life because of flooding.
	Over the next generation, we will also have to face the urban challenge in developing countries. Most people in the rich world live in urban areas. In the developing world, with the exception of Latin America, there is a relatively low level of urbanisation, but that is about to change. While the rural population of developing countries is expected to remain at roughly 3 billion over the next 25 years, their urban population will double from 2 billion to 4 billion. To illustrate that, let me use as an example the city of which I have the honour, in part, to represent. That increase is the equivalent of 112 new cities the size of Leeds being created each year, every year, for the next 25 years across the globe.
	One has to pause for a moment to contemplate the need for water, to which many hon. Members referred. I agree with the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) that water has to be affordable. We must also recognise the role that water provision plays in other aspects of development. If one puts a pump in a village, more girls will go to school because they will not have to spend time fetching and carrying water—a burden that falls particularly on women and girls.
	We must think of the need for sanitation and of the need for energy, which was mentioned by many hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) and the hon. Member for Guildford (Sue Doughty). On energy, if we can get investment into developing countries—it is investment, and the ability to earn a living and to trade, that they need above all—the technology, which we now have the ability to use because of advances in science and understanding, will follow.

David Taylor: Is not one way of accelerating the investment to which my hon. Friend refers to build on the commendable progress that we have made in meeting the UN's target for aid of 0.7 per cent. of GDP? Does he agree that economically we are in a strong position to set an international lead by developing and publishing a timetable for this country to achieve that target? Is not that a possibility in this Parliament?

Hilary Benn: As my hon. Friend will know, after 20 years in which the UK aid budget declined as a share of our national wealth, we have started to reverse that trend and are now on an upward path. I hope that the comprehensive spending review will demonstrate further progress towards the UN target, which we want to achieve.
	I am referring, however, to the investment that will make a major contribution to improving economic prospects in developing countries. Much of the aid that we give focuses on assisting Governments who want to get their kids into school, and on helping them to improve their health care and to achieve the right framework and environment so that investment will come to the country and give their people the opportunity of a better future.
	We know from this debate that we in the rich world have to use less of the world's resources so as to create the environmental space for poorer countries to develop. I was much taken by the elegant phrase used by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South, who talked about the need to take
	"a path to a different sense of richness".
	As a number of hon. Members have rightly said, developing countries will not for one second buy the argument that because we in the rich world have used up so much of the Earth's resources, they must wait for another life to enjoy the same benefit.
	The other point to remember about the world summit is that it is part of a process, and we need to get our expectations right. It is not a make-or-break event, but part of a series. The hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), who chairs the International Development Committee, rightly pointed out that it is part of a process in which the world is trying to address sustainability and poverty reduction. We hope that it will be able to build on the success of Doha in launching a new trade round, and on Monterrey, which has produced more aid.
	Above all, we want to see practical outcomes. In a thoughtful speech, the hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) reminded us that change is possible. I want to take just one example, which concerns the issue that the hon. Member for Richmond Park raised at the end of her speech, timber and forestry. Illegal logging is a major problem that uniquely brings together the two issues that the world summit is all about.
	Illegal logging is estimated to involve the loss of resources from public land in those countries affected by it of between $10 billion and $15 billion a year, which is more than all the aid that the world gives for health and education, so it really matters and it is a big issue. It involves corruption and it affects the livelihoods of people who live in the forest and rely on it for their existence. There is rising public concern about illegality and sustainability. The recent experience of two Departments has shown how difficult it is to turn the good intentions that we all have into practical action. With illegal logging, however, we have a chance to do that. The Government of Indonesia, which is a very good example of a developing country that has taken a courageous lead on the issue, are seizing shipments. Indonesia's new Forestry Minister is keen to change the way things work in that country, but in the end there will have to be a deal—

Andrew Stunell: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
	Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
	The House divided: Ayes 56, Noes 282.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
	Mr. Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
	Resolved,
	That this House applauds the leadership the UK is showing domestically and within the European Union, the G8 and the United Nations for the World Summit on Sustainable Development; welcomes the fact that the Prime Minister intends to attend the Summit; further welcomes the UK's climate change programme which is estimated to overshoot its Kyoto target of a 12.5 per cent. cut in 1990 levels of greenhouse gas emissions by 2012, reaching a cut of 23 per cent.; commends the introduction in the UK last month of the world's first economy-wide greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme; further welcomes the commitment in the Budget to significant increases in the landfill tax to promote recycling and waste minimisation; further applauds the fact that drinking water, river water and bathing water are at the highest ever quality; and calls upon the Government to continue to tackle global poverty through sustainable development.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Environmental Protection

That the draft Landfill (England and Wales) Regulations 2002, which were laid before this House on 26th March, be approved.—[Dan Norris.]
	Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

Pet Travel Scheme

That this House takes note of European Union Documents numbers 11596/00 and 12488/01, draft Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the animal health requirements applicable to non-commercial movement of pet animals; and congratulates the Government on securing for the United Kingdom, during the subsequent negotiations, the continuation, for at least five years, of arrangements similar to those contained in the successful United Kingdom Pet Travel Scheme.—[Dan Norris.]
	Question agreed to.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS

Ordered,
	That Mr. Frank Field, Mr. George Howarth and Mr. Nigel Jones be added to the Committee of Public Accounts.—[Dan Norris.]

MAGISTRATES COURTS (WILTSHIRE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Dan Norris.]

Andrew Murrison: I am grateful to have secured this debate, and for the support of right hon. and hon. Friends, which demonstrates the importance that we attach to this issue. I am also grateful to the Minister for appearing, especially as he is a Wiltshire MP; I hope that he will bring to the debate a particular insight into the issue.
	I have learned that my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) also has a magistrates court in his county town of Oakham in Rutland that is threatened just as the magistrates court in my county town of Trowbridge in Wiltshire is threatened. However, the problem is country wide.
	The county's magistrates courts committee recently announced plans to close the West Wiltshire magistrates court in Trowbridge in my constituency and the Devizes courthouse in the constituency of the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). Those plans have been put on hold by the timely intervention of Wiltshire county council. I hope that that will provide a breathing space so that the Minister and the Lord Chancellor can reverse a disastrous decision. My right hon. Friend regrets that he is unable to be here, but having campaigned for much longer than I have for the retention of magistrates courts in Wiltshire, he has asked to be associated with my remarks.
	Next week, I shall present a petition with more than 2,000 signatures in support of West Wiltshire magistrates court. Despite that measure of strong local feeling, some people have said to me, "What's the point? It's a done deal." We all moan that the public are uninterested in us and in what we do. The Government's response is to devise ever cleverer ways of re-engaging with them, such as electronic voting and polling booths at supermarkets, but the gist of it is that people feel that they cannot influence events that affect them. If the Government are serious about improving the reputation of politics, they must be prepared to be guided by strongly held local views of the sort that I have the privilege to represent today.
	My local youth offending team has just produced a map of young offenders in the West Wiltshire and Kennet districts, and found that the majority live in and around Trowbridge and Devizes. What is more, a high proportion of offences in both districts occur within two miles of the two threatened courthouses. What effect does the Minister suppose that the closures will have on those young offenders, who will now have to find their way to the relatively remote and unfamiliar towns of Chippenham and Salisbury?
	Before the election, the then Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the then Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said in their rural blueprint that
	"market towns"
	must be
	"the focus of a range of private and public services to which people need access."
	The DETR market town template specified the key services that towns with a population of just 10,000 to 25,000 needed, one of which was the presence of a magistrates court. That was reiterated in the Government paper entitled "Criminal Justice: The Way Ahead", which states:
	"People should look upon their local Magistrates' Court or Crown Court as a public service in the same way they view hospitals and schools."
	The Countryside Agency, in its annual rural proofing report, says that the Government
	"should look again at the national policy framework within which decisions are currently taken about the location of magistrates' courts. The closure of magistrates' courts in market and small rural towns may be yielding savings for the Lord Chancellor's Department but is causing concern about higher costs and greater inconvenience for those in rural areas."
	That is important, because it comes from the Countryside Agency—a Government quango. It is a great shame that the Government are not minded to take that sound advice.
	In Wiltshire, the situation has already sparked the resignation of one of our longest-serving justices of the peace, and I fear that more resignations may be in the pipeline. The fact is that our magistracy are to be packed off to vast justice factories in the large urban centres. Farewell, then, to the notion that justice should be dispensed locally by those with some knowledge of the context in which a crime has been committed and in which a sentence handed down would ultimately be served. Farewell to any chance that the convicted will feature in the local press, so that justice can be seen to be done.
	The Auld report endorsed a system of lay magistracy that has existed since 1361. I hope that the Minister will forgive me if I detect a desire to draw that to a close by way of the Government's centralisation of justice. Only this week, we have heard that magistrates are to be discouraged from using their JP post-nominals, a practice that I recall at least one Minister was pleased to follow until fairly recently. In itself that seems pretty unimportant, but it is symbolic of an attempt to downgrade the office. The implication behind the move may well add to the disillusion that is by stealth eroding the lay magistracy, paving the way for more stipendiaries in large sub-regional courthouses. We hear that Ministers are turning their backs on stealth. Let them come clean about their intentions for the bench.
	In a previous debate on a similar issue, the Minister used in his defence a quote from the Government's document "The Way Ahead". He said:
	"A criminal justice system must be effective at preventing offending and re-offending, efficient in the way in which it deals with cases, responsive to the needs of the victim and the law-abiding community and accountable for its decisions."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 31 October 2001; Vol. 373, c. 270–71WH.]
	I hope that that is not in his speaking notes again. It strikes me on rereading Hansard as something of an own goal.
	My comments are couched mainly in general terms, but Wiltshire's case is put extremely well in the county council's paper, which was sent to the Lord Chancellor in March. Wiltshire is a deceptive county. Its population lives in a doughnut around Salisbury plain, which, as the Minister knows, is the size of the Isle of Wight. That means that transport is far more difficult than the uninitiated imagine. To compound that, we learn that the closure of Trowbridge and Devizes would mean that the number of petty session divisions and courthouses would be far fewer than in other rural counties. Given that in some courts more than 40 per cent. of adjournments occur because defendants fail to turn up, I foresee grave difficulties for Wiltshire with far fewer courthouses than average, and unique geographic and transport challenges.
	Of course, we must upgrade our courthouses. In particular, we must make them more accessible to disabled people. We must also ensure that they are healthy and safe for all who have business in them. There is no doubt that Charles Dickens would recognise Trowbridge courthouse, which needs to be brought kicking and screaming into the 21st century as a matter of urgency. The fabric of the building is inadequate and needs serious attention.
	However, Ministers should be careful for two reasons. First, they should be careful when using the human rights agenda to proscribe, for example, the appearance of accused in handcuffs as they walk only a few feet from the police van to the courthouse door. If that constrains the rights of those who are not well off or who live in remote areas to equal access to justice, I wonder what, on balance, has been gained. Secondly, the Minister should note that disabled people are more likely than average to lose out if they are forced to travel to gain access to justice. Closures based on the cost of upgrading court rooms may be unhelpful.
	We must recognise that those who have business in magistrates courts—the accused and their families, witnesses and victims—tend to be at the poorer end of the social spectrum. Many are on benefit, and many do not have ready access to transport. The hurdle that the closures present will be far higher for them than for the better off. The hurdle for those who live in remote rural areas will be higher than for those who live in towns. How does that square with the Government's stated desire to create an equitable and fair society?
	A local policeman said to me that it is already difficult enough getting people to attend court in Trowbridge. If he had to get them to attend in Chippenham, there would be little chance. The well-off urbanite therefore presents himself at Chippenham in a timely fashion and the poor man from a small town or village does not, for a complex variety of reasons—and the Government believe that they are creating a fairer society.
	The Minister cannot hide behind the decisions of the magistrates courts committees, as I regret that he did in his letter to me of 8 April. He knows that Wiltshire magistrates courts committee is caught between a rock and a hard place. In his haste to indulge an expensive taste in wall coverings, the Lord Chancellor has neglected to furnish magistrates courts committees with the necessary funding to cover the crippling extra burdens that he has imposed on them.
	Although £600,000 buys mighty fine wallpaper, it would also renovate six court houses such as Trowbridge and ensure that people in areas like mine continue to have ready access to justice. Lord Chief Justice Auld is clear where the responsibility lies: in his opinion, courthouse closures are
	"driven by the Lord Chancellor's Department."
	It is important to remember where the blame lies. It is reprehensible of Ministers to pretend that that is a matter for magistrates courts committees when the responsibility lies firmly with Ministers.
	I hope that the Minister will take home some of those points. I recognise that he is a Wiltshire MP; he will therefore know the geography of the area. I also hope that the Countryside Agency's point about the rurality of the area, along with the need to ensure access, the special situation of Wiltshire with regard to transport, and the large area of Salisbury plain in the middle which means that access from north to south is extremely difficult, will convince him that we have a case for keeping the Trowbridge and Devizes courthouses open. A particularly telling revelation was made by the county council, which showed that, were those courthouses to close, we would have far fewer courthouses than one might expect, compared with similar rural counties in the south-west and nationwide.
	This is an important issue that affects us all, wherever our constituencies may be. It is about access to justice, one of the most fundamental tenets that we value in this country. My strong concern is that, with the closure of those two courthouses and a move towards a system of justice based in large urban centres and housed in vast justice factories, that access would be denied, particularly to the most vulnerable and to those who live in rural areas. I am sure that the Minister does not want that to happen, and hon. Members on this side of the House certainly do not. I hope, therefore, that he will be able to give us some reassurance today about these two important courthouses and, more generally, about courthouses in other parts of the country.

Robert Key: May I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) and the Minister for allowing me a few minutes to speak in this traditional Adjournment debate?
	There have been courts in Salisbury since the city was founded in 1220, and I hope that there will be for a long time to come. I have not actually represented Salisbury since 1220: only since 1983. In that time, however, I have seen courts close. We lost the court in Tisbury, but we learned to live with that. My late mother was a magistrate in Salisbury in her day. I am old enough to recall the Assizes sitting in the Guildhall courts in Salisbury; the judge's procession from his lodgings in the close provided a moment of awe. The city came to a standstill, the traffic stopped and people stood still on the pavement as the judge walked past. Those days have gone, but I suspect that the quality of justice may have been better then.
	My hon. Friend is wholly right to campaign for local access to justice in his constituency, and in that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram). These proposals are a Treasury-driven exercise, and I understand and respect the position in which the Minister finds himself. I have to thank the magistrates in my constituency for upholding the law, and the dignity of the law, in picturesque but antediluvian surroundings. I also have to thank the solicitors, the Crown Prosecution Service and the police. They, too, make the law work in facilities that are not at all appropriate to modern expectations. Salisbury magistrates courts also fail to meet the standards set as a result of the Government's decision to introduce the Human Rights Act 1998 to British law.
	The problem facing us all is: who is going to pay and when will this happen? We were told some years ago that the Lord Chancellor's Department would pay, but it always seems short of money and living hand to mouth at the end of the financial year, with the result that perhaps only a few crumbs might slip towards Wiltshire. Our constituents deserve better than that. They deserve to have their courthouses in Devizes and in Trowbridge, as well as in Salisbury.
	I was interested to see who supported the magistrates courts committee proposals. Of course, the Crown Prosecution Service, the probation service, the prisoner escort services and most of the Wiltshire justices of the peace support the Lord Chancellor's proposals, as, of course, do I. I was surprised, however, to see that the Wiltshire police authority apparently opposes them. I got that information in a written parliamentary answer from the Minister on 10 April 2002, at column 45W of Hansard.
	The assistant chief constable of Wiltshire police wrote to the justices' clerk on 27 September 2001 as follows:
	"We would not be in favour of the number of court sites in the County being reduced to less than three, preferably at Swindon, Salisbury and Chippenham."
	He also wrote to the justices' chief executive on 23 January this year to say:
	"We support the closure of the Guildhall at Salisbury and its relocation to a purpose built building as this can only improve the administration of justice in the south of the county."
	I wonder why the police authority has acted against the advice of the police, but that is not a matter for me; it is a fact that I hope the Minister will bear in mind.
	I am disappointed by the county council's decision to oppose the proposals. It has not had the courtesy to offer me any explanation, or to show me the submission that it sent to the Lord Chancellor, but it must be a partial case. We in Salisbury hope very much that the Lord Chancellor's Department will accede to the suggestions of the magistrates court committee.
	Perhaps I can offer a crumb of comfort to my hon. Friend, who I hope will be able to persuade the Minister to change his mind and save the courts. It is significant that the magistrates court committee intends, if the proposals go ahead, to ensure full integration of magistrates court staff with Crown and county court staff at the Salisbury courthouse. It also intends—this is, perhaps, more of an innovation—to install live video links in other rural community facilities, such as libraries, police stations and schools, particularly for the benefit of witnesses and victims in the more rural parts of Wiltshire such as my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury.
	I think that system could work. I have seen it work very well in the context of the new proposals for courts martial. In Cyprus, for example, I have seen successful links between courtrooms there and courts martial centres in Aldershot.
	I thank my hon. Friend again for allowing me, briefly, to support his case, but also to point out that we in Salisbury hope very much that we will get our new courthouse.

Michael Wills: Let me begin, as is traditional, by congratulating the hon. Member for Westbury (Dr. Murrison) on securing the debate. I seem to have been replying to a number of debates on magistrates courts and Crown court closures in recent months; this is the second in the current month.
	When courts close, local Members of Parliament—understandably, and reflecting the understandable concerns of their constituents—become rather agitated, and often seek debates such as this. I entirely understand the hon. Gentleman's legitimate anxieties, although I was slightly surprised that he used a fair amount of his precious parliamentary time to engage in what I considered to be irrelevant party political knockabout. I certainly failed to see the relevance of some of his points.
	These are serious issues for all concerned, and we take them seriously. As everyone knows, we are about to embark on measures to implement the recommendations we will accept from Lord Justice Auld's report on the review of the criminal court system. That will inevitably have implications for the magistrates courts, and I think it important for us to discuss them with the seriousness that they deserve.
	I think that before I deal specifically with Wiltshire—as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, I am a Wiltshire Member, and as such I am familiar with much of the background—I should deal with the context in which decisions are made. The hon. Gentleman's speech demonstrated that he had not wholly understood the process, so I want to clarify it. As he probably knows, magistrates courts are managed by locally based magistrates courts committees, each of which is solely responsible for the efficient and effective administration of the courts in its area.
	The hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. Either, as he alleges, we are hell bent on centralisation, or—as he also alleged—we are trying to duck out of decentralising responsibility to the local courts. It must be one or the other. Being in opposition, the hon. Gentleman has the privilege of being able to make two contradictory allegations at the same time.

Andrew Murrison: rose—

Michael Wills: I am happy to give way, but I should point out that as we must finish in nine minutes, my important remarks about Wiltshire will inevitably be curtailed if I do so.

Andrew Murrison: Removing Trowbridge and Devizes magistrates courts and sending cases to Chippenham must be viewed as centralisation. I also think the Minister must not duck the issue of the Government's ultimate responsibility for closures. That is the issue that faces him now.

Michael Wills: There is no question of ducking anything. Courts have to close under all Governments and the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) gave an example from his constituency. It is regrettable, but courts have to close for particular reasons that are not all Treasury driven. To dismiss the needs of disabled people and other perfectly fair human rights considerations does no credit to anyone.
	The remarks that the hon. Member for Westbury made about the use of handcuffs are irrelevant. I do not want to take up precious time now, but I will be happy to discuss the matter with him on another occasion and explain the true position about the application of human rights measures to the courts.
	It is the responsibility of magistrates courts committees, which are locally based and know their areas best, in consultation with the relevant paying authorities, which are also locally based, to determine how many courthouses, whether urban or rural, as well as other types of accommodation, are needed locally. In discharging this statutory responsibility, the Government expect magistrates courts committees to undertake regular reviews of their accommodation requirements. In doing so, they follow set guidelines which take into account crucial factors such as the strategic aims of each magistrates courts committee, the facilities that are needed, and the results of user surveys. They have to strike a balance—I appreciate that this can be difficult and that there is sometimes strong local opposition—between providing an efficient and effective service to their users and maintaining secure, well equipped court accommodation, and ensuring reasonably full utilisation of court facilities.
	It is slightly ironic to be lecturing Conservative Members about the proper use of taxpayer's money, as for many years we heard them use this rhetoric but never fulfil it in practice. We believe that we have to be prudent custodians of taxpayers' money and I would have hoped that, at the very least, the hon. Gentleman could have agreed with that.

Andrew Murrison: I was being a little facetious about wallpaper, but the point was well made. I was referring to the inefficient use of funds. I was also trying to point out that magistrates courts can be renovated relatively cheaply. I agree with the Minister that it is not just a matter of resources, but I am afraid that resources are a large part of the efficient use of public money, and I used a fairly good example.

Michael Wills: I am happy to agree with the hon. Gentleman that he was being facetious, but not about much else. Owing to the constraints on time, I shall have to omit the remarks that I was about to make about the general background, since I want to say something about the situation in Wiltshire. Although I register the concerns that the hon. Gentleman has expressed, he has not recognised the complexity of the case and has—understandably—left out a number of salient facts.
	An extensive consultation process has continued for some time. The second period of consultation conducted by the magistrates courts committee started in September 2001. As a result of that, it revised its original proposal, accepting that the convenience of victims, witnesses and defendants is more important than strict petty session area boundaries. That will allow cases to be heard at one of the three courts that the MCC proposes to retain, whichever is more convenient to the parties concerned. It is also prepared to stagger court hearings throughout the day for those who have to travel greater distances. That shows the responsiveness of a local body to local needs.
	The magistrates courts committee investigated the possibility of upgrading the three courthouses, but found that much of the necessary work on the two, town centre, grade 2 listed buildings at Trowbridge and Salisbury was impossible and prohibitively expensive. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the third is a temporary mobile construction on a restricted site at Devizes which was acquired second-hand from what was then the local education authority. That is hardly the standard of accommodation we want for our courthouses. In the circumstances, one has to examine carefully whether value for money and the interests of justice will be best achieved by keeping the courthouses open. I hope that we can at least agree that this is a legitimate case for study. We have to explore the options and we expect the MCCs to do that.
	The overwhelming consideration is to reduce the number of under-used courtrooms. The degree of use in Wiltshire is under the national average by a considerable amount, as I suspect the hon. Gentleman knows. Between October and December last year, the national average utilisation figure was 60.5 per cent., but the figure for Wiltshire was 49.4 per cent. In the interests of everybody, we have to consider how to increase that figure.
	On 8 February, Wiltshire MCC made a final determination, under section 56 of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997, to close Trowbridge courthouse with effect from 1 April. In accordance with that Act, Wiltshire county council formally lodged an appeal against the determination on 11 March. The appeal process is continuing, and each party is being given the opportunity to make its case for closure or retention of the courts. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that responsibility for deciding whether the appeal should be upheld resides ultimately with the Department.
	Once both parties have confirmed that they have no further representations to make, l will be asked to make a decision, which will be final and binding on all parties. The hon. Gentleman will doubtless be aware that the MCC has recently requested a meeting with me, and in my response I will point out that I am happy to meet all interested parties separately to discuss the matter in detail. If the hon. Gentleman wants to discuss these issues seriously—unfortunately, for reasons of time I have been unable to address several of them this evening—I am happy to invite him to the meeting, or to meet him separately. [Interruption.] I think that he is indicating some form of assent, so my office will get in touch with his to arrange a mutually convenient time in the near future. At that meeting, I hope that we can discuss these issues in rather more detail than was possible today.
	The hon. Member for Salisbury commented on his constituency, so perhaps I might spend a few moments on that. The MCC has submitted a business case, and as a result officials in the Lord Chancellor's Department have submitted a bid for additional funding in the spending review to support small court schemes. If the MCC's determination to commission a courthouse in Salisbury is permitted, it will be procured via a route known as the "2 stage design and build", which is used by Government Departments for acquiring new buildings when capital becomes available.
	I hope that my brief remarks have shown that these issues are complex. We must take account of everything and ensure that courts are fully utilised. Apart from anything else, that allows business to be conducted efficiently. It is in no one's interests—and certainly not of local justice—if people are unable to have their cases heard in court at the appointed time. The hon. Member for Westbury made many fair points about travel times and convenience for victims and witnesses, but it is also convenient for those people that their cases be heard when they are scheduled—a point that relates to the efficient use of court space.
	These are complex issues to which there is never an easy answer. Any decision to close a court is always going to evoke local opposition. We must find a right way forward, but that can be done only through dialogue—hence my offer of a meeting. In the end, we are looking to provide a modern system of justice, with well equipped and secure courtrooms. We want to reduce delay in the time taken for cases to proceed through these courts—
	The motion having been made after Ten o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
	Adjourned at seventeen minutes to Eleven o'clock.